Subject: [rfc-i] author/organization = "unaffiliated"?

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:57:40 +0100

Hi there,

I recently saw a few cases where authors put in "unaffiliated" (or
something similar) as organization name.

Is this something that the style guide should mention? Should it
recommend *not* to set anything here when there's nothing to set?

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:56:44 +0100

On Nov 6, 2019, at 06:57, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> recommend *not* to set anything here when there’s nothing to set?

FWIW, I consider “Unaffiliated” to be a blemish on a document, and I would prefer to leave the slot open.

But then, I’ve been through discussions with authors who really wanted something like this (“Consultant”? I don’t remember.) on their documents.  I think if, after explaining that “Unaffiliated” is both unnecessary and ugly, an author still wants that (*), we should respect that wish.

Grüße, Carsten

(*) (or has founded “Unaffiliated LLC” :-)

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:17:38 +0100

On 06.11.2019 08:56, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> ...

Yes.

If the author wants it there, it can go there (although it makes me
unhappy about the abused XML markup).

On the other hand, if it was put there because the author thought that
an organisation *needs* to be stated, we should discourage that. I think
the Style Guide would be the right place.

Speaking of which...
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-04#section-4.1.2> says:

>    If an author cannot or will not provide an affiliation for any
>    reason, "Independent", "Individual Contributor", "Retired", or some
>    other term that appropriately describes the author's affiliation may
>    be used.  Alternatively, a blank line may be included in the document
>    header when no affiliation is provided.

So we have already text there; maybe it should just mention that not
specifying an affiliation is perfectly fine.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:20:28 +0100

> specifying an affiliation is perfectly fine.

You are right, the wording puts less preference on the blank affiliation than is probably desired — that should be the normal situation, indeed, and not just an “alternative”.

Grüße, Carsten