Subject: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:39:19 +0100

[First post here]

Hello,

I'm a contributor to RFC 6350 - but I'm listed there by name only, and
there is nothing to differentiate me from some other Andy Mabbett (the
problem is no doubt worse for people with less unusual family names).
Like many such contributors, I don't want to publish my email address
as an identifier, in case I get spammed, and if I give an affiliation
or even the URL of my website, that may change over time.

This problem is addressed by "Open Research Contributor Identifiers"
(ORCID; <http://orcid.org>),  UIDs (and URIs) for scientific and other
academic authors. Mine is below.

As the website says: "ORCID is an open, non-profit, community-driven
effort to create and maintain a registry of unique researcher
identifiers and a transparent method of linking research activities
and outputs to these identifiers".

Individuals can sign up for an ORCID at <http://orcid.org/> and then
include it in their attribution in RfCs, in their research papers, and
in other publications.

I'd like to propose that we strongly encourage, or even mandate, this
for future RfCs.

How should I proceed? Is this list the best place for discussion of
this topic? Does it need an RfC? If so, would someone care to assist
me, please?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Website: http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5882-6823

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:49:50 +0100

> academic authors. Mine is below.

There are actually IETF participants who share a name - all poor comments
and suggestions are actually that other Dave Cridland of course - but it's
not clear that this is a problem requiring a centralised registration which
isn't even centralised under the auspices of either the IETF or ISoc.

That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in an
RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a registration
procedure for authors.

Dave.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 06:52:53 -0800

On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in
> an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a
> registration procedure for authors.

I think it's an interesting idea.  It might be worth talking
with Heather and with whoever maintains the xml2rfc schema
about whether or not we can or should experiment with adding
an ORCID element to the name element.

Melinda

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:12:57 -0300

Or perhaps use the FOAF (Friends of A Friend), inaugurating Semantic Web
/ Linked Data in the IETF. Avoids centralization and imposes no limits
on the choice of the information by the interested.

Julião

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:49:28 -0400

It's a good idea but I would generalize it.  Why have a system just for I*?
 I would allow people to provide a pointer to their public information in
one (or more?) of many places.  For example,
http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual8772 and if necessary we can
explore federated identity.

Scott

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:59:58 -0700

> or even the URL of my website, that may change over time.

If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the document
and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is it contact info?

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:34:35 +0100

> and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is it contact info?

While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact info[*], an
individual can do so through their ORCID profile, which they manage
and can update at any time.

* The purpose of ORCID is to /uniquely/ identify individuals, both to
differentiate between people with similar names, and to unify works
where the author uses variant or changed names - say Jim Smith, James
Smith and J. H. Smith for one author, or authors who change their name
on marriage, divorce, change of religion or  whatever.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:06:15 -0400

--On Monday, September 16, 2013 18:34 +0100 Andy Mabbett
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> If the goal is to include contact info for the authors in the
>> document and in fact you can't be contacted using the info is
>> it contact info?
> 
> While I didn't say that the goal was to provide contact
> info[*], an individual can do so through their ORCID profile,
> which they manage and can update at any time.

The goal of the "author's address" section of the RFCs is
_precisely_ contact information.  See, e.g.,
draft-flanagan-style-02 and its predecessors.  

I can see some advantages in including ORCID or some similar
identifier along with the other contact information.  I've been
particularly concerned about a related issue in which we permit
non-ASCII author names and then have even more trouble keeping
track of equivalences than you "J. Smith" example implies and
for which such an identifier would help.   But, unless we were
to figure out how to require, not only that people have ORCIDs
but that they have and maintain contact information there (not
just "can do so"), I'd consider it useful supplemental
information, not a replacement for the contact information that
is now supposed to be present.

Treating an ORCID (or equivalent) as supplemental would also
avoid requiring the RSE to inquire about guarantees about the
permanence and availability of the relevant database.  It may be
fine; I'd just like to avoid having to go there.

best,
   john

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:19:05 +0100

> draft-flanagan-style-02 and its predecessors.

I'm sure it is; but nor did I mention the "author's address" section -
 I'm credited under "Acknowledgments".

> identifier along with the other contact information

> [But] I'd consider it useful supplemental

Nor have I argued that it should be.

> fine; I'd just like to avoid having to go there.

Even if the ORCID database vanishes (which is highly unlikely) the
existing UIDs will still be unique.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:07:19 -0700 (PDT)

> an ORCID element to the name element.
	
I don't see a need to mandate providing an ORCID or other identifier,
but I can't see a reason not to support  inclusion of such an
identifier at the contributor's option.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:19:39 -0400

> identifier at the contributor's option.

+1, if any mandate, then make it a IETF registry. :)

-- 
HLS

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Sep 2013 19:24:54 -0000

>where the author uses variant or changed names

If you think that's a good idea, I don't see any reason to forbid
people from including an ORCID along with the real contact info, but I
would be extremely unhappy if the IETF were to mandate it or anything
like it.

My name turns out to be fairly common.  Over the years, I have been
confused with a comp sci professor in Edinburgh, a psychology
professor in Pittsburgh, another comp sci researcher in Georgia, a
psychiatrist in Cambridge MA, a composer in Cambridge UK, a car buyer
in Phoenix, and some random guy in Brooklyn, all of whom happen to be
named John Levine.  Tough.  Not my problem.

I also think that it's time for people to get over the "someone might
spam me so I'm going to hide" nonsense.  The point of putting contact
info in an RFC is so that people can contact you, and the most
ubiquitous contact identifiers we have remain e-mail addresses.  I
still use the same e-mail address I've had since 1993 (the one in the
signature below), and my garden variety spam filters are quite able to
keep it usable.  If I can do it, so can you.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:41:17 -0400

> keep it usable.  If I can do it, so can you.

+1

I discovered the ambiguity problem 30 years ago and began using the full
version of my family name to ensure uniqueness.

Since this has turned out to be ambiguous, I have decided to instead use a
SHA-256 hash of my DNA sequence:

9f00a4-9d1379-002a03-007184-905f6f-796534-06f9da-304b11-0f88d7-92192e-98b2

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Sep 2013 19:45:31 -0000

>9f00a4-9d1379-002a03-007184-905f6f-796534-06f9da-304b11-0f88d7-92192e-98b2

How does your identical twin brother feel about this?

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:48:18 +0100

> named John Levine.  Tough.  Not my problem.

Come on, John. We all know that these people are all you in your many forms.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:06:03 +1200

> academic authors. Mine is below.

The idea is interesting, but I don't understand the security model.

How do I know that the sender of this message actually has the right
to claim the ORCID in question (0000-0001-5882-6823)? The web page
doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used
for authentication.

    Brian

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Sep 2013 20:31:41 -0000

>doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used

I dunno.  How do we know who [email-masked] is?  I can
tell you from experience that a lot of people think they are
[email-masked], and all but one of them are mistaken.

R's,
John

PS: Now that I think about it, you can already put in a personal URL
in rfc2xml, so if someone wants to use an ORCID URL, they can do so
right now.

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:37:32 +0100

> doesn't present anything (such as a public key) that could be used

It is not the purpose of ORCID to provide authentication.

That said, in my case my ORCID is shown on my website, and my ORCID
profile links to my website, so there is round trip verification.It is
proposed to add "rel-me" [1] attributes to ORCID, to encode that
authentication in a machine-readable manner, when the linked website
(such as mine) also uses that attribute.

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-me

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:49:20 +0100

> It is not the purpose of ORCID to provide authentication.

I also note that:

"ORCID uses OAuth to support authentication of the relationship
between an individual and an ORCID record.  When an individual creates
a record, ORCID sends a verification email to that in the record.  If
a record is created by an individual's employer, ORCID will send a
claiming email to the individual.  In both cases, OAuth is used to
authenticate the claim."

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:52:29 +0100

On 16 September 2013 19:06, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> permanence and availability of the relevant database.

I've checked with ORCID and they say:

"the ORCID Registry is planned, from a technical perspective, as a
long-term effort to support persistent identifiers.  In addition,
Registry code is open source, and we will be posting a public data
file on an annual basis starting in October.  Finally, we have
transition plans in the unlikely event that ORCID should cease to
exist as an organization--in which case the ORCID registry and data
contained therein would transfer to a non-profit organization with a
similar mission."

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:02:06 +0000

On Sep 16, 2013, at 11:31 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I dunno.  How do we know who [email-masked] is?  

What's the difference between ignorance and indifference?

Whoever [email-masked] is, it could be a man, a woman, or a whole think tank responding as one person (like NAT, but for email). Regardless, brian.e.carpenter replies to emails and publishes drafts (which requires replying to an email), and has his name on recent RFCs (which also requires replying to the AUTH48 message).

So whoever is behind the email address, he, she or they are an active IETF participant. Right now, nobody is preventing me from submitting an I-D and listing Brian as co-author, except a mail would be sent to [email-masked], which he may or may not notice. We can't proceed to RFC without him noticing, because he has to reply to the AUTH48. Would it be possible to spoof all this? Maybe, but that's pretty much all you need to get a DV certificate.

If we use ORCID instead of email, we get less strong authentication. We need to bind not the ORCID to a government-issued identity, but to all other instances of ORCID use, otherwise it doesn't uniquely identify a single entity.

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:16:18 +0100

On 16 September 2013 22:02, Yoav Nir <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If we use ORCID instead of email

No-one has proposed that.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:19:23 -0800

On 9/16/13 1:02 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> If we use ORCID instead of email, we get less strong authentication.

That's not its job - it's there to distinguish between authors
with similar names.  As I understand the proposal the intent is
to have it provide additional information, not supplant anything.
There is currently no identifier that provides that kind of
discrimination.  I don't see any real downside to allowing
people who have ORCIDs to put them in IETF documents.  I'm not
sure there's a lot of demand for them (this is the first time
it's come up, as far as I know) but I don't see a problem with
plopping one more piece of information - one that has a unique
function - into our docs.

Melinda

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:41:40 +1200

On 17/09/2013 11:19, Melinda Shore wrote:
> with similar names.  

Fair enough, but adding a public key to the record would enable
authentication too.

> As I understand the proposal the intent is
> discrimination.  

I wonder about that, but this is certainly a decent option. I can
see it being especially valuable for people who change their name but
want to keep a unified publication history. Also for people who've published
under legitimate variants (B Carpenter, B E Carpenter, Brian Carpenter
and Brian E Carpenter have all published, and [email-masked]
asserts that they are all the same person, except for the ones that aren't).

> I don't see any real downside to allowing
> people who have ORCIDs to put them in IETF documents.  

Agreed.

    Brian

> I'm not

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:47:58 -0800

> Fair enough, but adding a public key to the record would enable

I suppose it was inevitable that when it came into the IETF
it would balloon into an overcomplicated mess.  Think of it
as one metadata element, not a big blob of metadata elements.

Look at it this way: it's a classification tool.  Classification
has two functions - to group things which are like and to
distinguish things which are unlike.  That's all this does.

Melinda

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:33:12 -0400

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

His opinion is identical to my own.

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 02:14:33 +0000

I do have an identical twin brother, and hashing the DNA sequence collides more regularly than either random or MAC-based interface-identifiers in IPv6.

Also, he doesn't have the same opinions.

Greg Daley

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013 11:33 AM
To: John Levine
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for bibliographers

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Sep 2013 22:28:58 -0400

> Also, he doesn't have the same opinions.

Clearly, one of you needs to get to know some retroviruses.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:56:04 +0100

> function - into our docs.

Thank you. So how might we raise awareness of ORCID among RfC
contributors and and encourage its use by them?

Is there a "how to" guide or FAQ where it could be mentioned? How
might we get the IETF to agree to wording along the lines of "the IETF
encourages (or "recommends" or "requests") contributors to register
for an ORCID and to include it..."?

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 04:07:17 -0800

> contributors and and encourage its use by them?

I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.

I hope that what's going on here is *not* that there's been
little uptake and you're trying to promote its use.

Melinda

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:26:54 +0100

> it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.

Thank you. Is Heather on this list?

> little uptake and you're trying to promote its use.

On the contrary; the uptake from both individuals, and organisations
incorporating ORCID into their publishing workflows - is impressive,
as you can see form reading the ORCID website & blog.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:56:31 -0400

Heather Flanagan can be most easily reached at
[email-masked], the specified email address for reaching the 
rfc-editor.
Note however that you need to be clear as to what you are asking her. 
If you are asking that she arrange for the tools to include provision 
for using ORCHIDs, that is a reasonable request.  SUch a request would 
presumably be prioritized along with the other tooling improvement that 
are under consideration.

On the other hand, if youa re asking that the IETF endorse or encourage 
such uses, there are two problems.  First, the RFC Editor does not speak 
for the IETF.  You need to actually get a determination of IETF rough 
consensus on the ietf email list.  That consensus would need to be based 
on a more specific question than "do we want to allow ORCHIDs", and then 
would be judged on that question by the IETF chair.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:37:30 -0400

+1 Thank you for your input.   Seems to me to be a conflict of 
interest issue. I support the basic concept but why not use a IETF 
registry instead?  Solves several of the conflict of interest 
concerns, including about 3rd party entities disappearing, losing 
support, etc.

-- 
HLS

On 9/17/2013 8:56 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> [email-masked], the specified email address for reaching
> the rfc-editor.
> presumably be prioritized along with the other tooling improvement
> that are under consideration.
>
> On the other hand, if youa re asking that the IETF endorse or
> encourage such uses, there are two problems.  First, the RFC Editor
> does not speak for the IETF.  You need to actually get a determination
> of IETF rough consensus on the ietf email list.  That consensus would
> need to be based on a more specific question than "do we want to allow
> ORCHIDs", and then would be judged on that question by the IETF chair.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:42:50 -0400

Hi.  I agree completely with Joel, but let me add a bit more
detail and a possible alternative...

--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 08:56 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If you are asking that she arrange for the tools
> to include provision for using ORCHIDs, that is a reasonable
> request.  SUch a request would presumably be prioritized along
> with the other tooling improvement that are under
> consideration.

And either explicit provision for ORCID or more general
provisions for other identifying characteristics might easily be
added as part of the still-unspecified conversions to support
non-ASCII characters.  

That said, you could get ORCID IDs into RFCs on your own
initiative by defining and registering a URN type that embedded
the ORCID and then, in xml2rfc terms, using the <uri> element of
<author><address> to capture it.  If you want to pursue that
course, RFCs 3044 and 3187 (and others) provide examples of how
it is done although I would suggest that you also consult with
the URNBIS WG before proceeding because some of the procedures
are proposed to be changed.  The RFC Editor (at least) would
presumably need to decide that ORCID-based URNs were
sufficiently stable, but no extra tooling would be required.

> encourage such uses, there are two problems.  First, the RFC
> Editor does not speak for the IETF.  You need to actually get
> a determination of IETF rough consensus on the ietf email
> list.  That consensus would need to be based on a more
> specific question than "do we want to allow ORCHIDs", and then

And, if you asked that the ORCID be used _instead_ of other
contact information, the issues and several people have raised
would apply in that discussion and, at minimum, would make
getting consensus harder.

    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:43:57 -0400

--On Monday, September 16, 2013 22:28 -0400 John R Levine
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I do have an identical twin brother, and hashing the DNA
>> sequence collides more regularly than either random or
>> MAC-based interface-identifiers in IPv6.
>> 

Or you aren't identical enough.  Clearly the hash should be
computed over both your DNA sequence and a canonical summary of
your opinions.

Are we far enough down this rathole?

    john

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:07:38 +0100

> Are we far enough down this rathole?

I'm not sure. Which John are you again? The car-buying psychiatric composer
who lives in Edinburgh, Georgia?

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:20:37 -0400

I did not know about ORCID before this thread.
I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate of
orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.

I agree with what Joel wrote:

Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF endorsement
are two very different things.

Having tool support for it is a necessary first step to permitting IETF
contributors to gain experience with it.   We need that experience before we
can talk about consensus.

So, permit ORCID, but not enforce.
An interesting second (or third) conversation might be about how I could
insert ORCIDs into the meta-data for already published documents.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:16:23 -0400

--On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:20 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think it is brilliant, and what I've read about the mandate
> of orcid.org, and how it is managed, I am enthusiastic.
> 
> Asking for ORCID support in the tool set and asking for IETF
> endorsement are two very different things.
> 
> Having tool support for it is a necessary first step to
> permitting IETF contributors to gain experience with it.   We
> need that experience before we can talk about consensus.
> 

The more I think about it, the more I think that Andy or someone
else who understands ORCIDs and the relevant organizations,
etc., should be working on a URN embedding of the things.  Since
we already have provisions for URIs in contact information, an
ORCID namespace would permit the above without additional
tooling or special RFC Editor decision making.  It would also
avoid entanglement with and controversies about the rather long
RFC Editor [re]tooling queue.

Doing the write-up would require a bit of effort but, in
principle,
    URN:ORICD:....
is pretty close to trivially obvious.

Comments about dogfood-eating and not inventing new mechanisms
when we have existing ones might be inserted by reference here.

> An interesting second (or third) conversation might be about
> how I could insert ORCIDs into the meta-data for already
> published documents. 

With a URN embedding that question would turn into the much more
general one about how URIs in contact metadata could be
retroactively inserted and updated. In some ways, that is
actually an easier question.

best,
   john

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Sep 2013 16:27:30 -0000

>can talk about consensus.

The toolset already lets you put in URIs.  What else do you think it needs?

R's,
John

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:34:32 -0400

> are two very different things.

I must admit that I'm still somewhat confused by what exact problem we are trying to solve here.

Things that I write in an IETF context are fundamentally different to things that I write on other contexts, so I don't really see a need for a *global* identifier (If folk think that I wrote a particularly funny anecdote about fish they are not likely to be looking for drafts that I have co-authored. Anyway, what I author in the IEFT context should reflect WG consensus, so who the actual author is is somewhat irrelevant).

So, all I really need is to disambiguate myself in the IETF context.
This seems simple -- when I arrived here, no-one mistook me for some other Warren Kumari, so I have stuck with that identifier.
If there was already a Warren Kumari participating I would simply have used my middle name (embarrassingly enough, "Kim") and been Warren Kim Kumari.
Had there already been a Warren Kim Kumari, I could refer to myself as Warren "Monkey" Kumari, Warren "Ace" Kumari, Warren "Dumbass" Kumari, etc. 

If there were multiple Warren Kumari's participating folk are more likely to remember me as "Dumbass Warren" than "that Warren guy with the ORCID 0000-0002-2404-6244".

If the purpose it to try prevent folk intentionally passing themselves off as someone else, well, putting in an ORCID doesn't really accomplish that either.

I guess I see no harm in this, I just don't really get the point. 

W

-- 
There are only 10 types of people in this world -- those who understand binary arithmetic and those who don't.

---

From: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:36:39 -0400

I'm in agreement.

We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of contact information.  For example, my contact information for the April 1, 1995 RFC 1776 is:

> Steve Crocker
>    CyberCash, Inc.
>    2086 Hunters Crest Way
>    Vienna, VA 22181
> 
>    Phone: +1 703 620 1222
>    EMail: [email-masked]
> 
The email address, phone number and postal address became stale a long time ago.  If ORCID is introduced, it's likely to be at least as good as email addresses, etc.  Let's avoid or at least defer trying to endow them with additional properties such as permanence until there is some experience.

Steve

---

From: "Pat Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:22:42 +0000

Given this comment in John Levin's post: " PS: Now that I think about it, you can already put in a personal URL
in rfc2xml, so if someone wants to use an ORCID URL, they can do so
right now." it seems like there isn't any need to change the schema.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:57 AM
To: Andy Mabbett
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ORCID - unique identifiers for contributors

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:29:22 -0400

> right now." it seems like there isn't any need to change the schema.

+1.  Those who are concerned about name collisions can add a pointer
to any sort of additional information.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:29:53 -0800

On 9/17/13 9:22 AM, Pat Thaler wrote:
> Given this comment in John Levin's post: " PS: Now that I think about
> it, you can already put in a personal URL in rfc2xml, so if someone
> wants to use an ORCID URL, they can do so right now." it seems like
> there isn't any need to change the schema.

I'd agree that there isn't a *need* but I would agree
that for it to be valuable as metadata it ought to (the
word "should" is forever tainted) be a new child
element of the name element.

Melinda

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:37:54 +0200

On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Steve Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The email address, phone number and postal address became stale a long time ago.  If ORCID is
I was always wondering the authors can't get an @ietf.org address, which is listed
in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.

Best regards
Michael
> introduced, it's likely to be at least as good as email addresses, etc.  Let's avoid or at least defer trying to endow them with additional properties such as permanence until there is some experience.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:48:25 -0400

> in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.

The email address associated with the draft, for example
[email-masked], apparently stays
with the RFC.  If you go to tracker for any RFC you can click "email
authors".  I don't think there's a way to update the authors' current
addresses.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:55:36 +0200

> authors".  I don't think there's a way to update the authors' current
... and that is my point. One level of indirection might be useful here.
I would prefer to update only one mapping and not go through a list
of RFCs and change the mapping for each document.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:00 +0200

> in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.

+1.

(Remarkably, all the RFCs I co-authored show the same email address.  Not so for the ones I only contributed to, even though all of those addresses still work.  But even for the co-authored ones that seems to be the exception.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:19:12 -0800

> of RFCs and change the mapping for each document.

I really think that you all are completely over-engineering
this.  But that's what I think.  What I *know* is that you're
looking at this from the perspective of IETF contributors.
Librarians have a problem, too, and the ORCID stuff primarily
addresses that problem, not ours.

There's been a long history of difficulty in name usage on
documents and that's confounded librarians, who for some
reason (<- sarcasm) feel the need to be able to group works by the same
author.  This has been dealt with through authority control
mechanisms, where the cataloger tries to ascertain if
a given "Scott Smith" is the same person as one of the
many other Scott Smiths already in the catalog, and if not,
creates a new authority record.  Discrimination is encoded
in the authority records in the form of middle names/initials,
dates of birth and death, etc.  Again, this is something the
*cataloger* does, and it's actually rather difficult.  So,
in a cataloging record the contents of the author field are
normalized under authority control and the author name as it
appears on the title page is carried in the body of the
cataloging record, and not indexed.

There's a quite good discussion of this here:
http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/09/name-authority-control-aka-name.html

What ORCID does is allow the author to help catalogers out
by providing a unifying identifier.  It's not intended to
be authenticative or provide identity information - it just
helps group documents (which is why I think it belongs in a
separate piece of metadata).  I don't think this is a huge
deal and i don't think it requires community consensus.  I
imagine most IETF authors, who for the most part are not
academics, will bother with it, and that's just fine.

Melinda

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:14:16 +0200

> this.  But that's what I think.  What I *know* is that you're
Really?
Each RFC lists the addresses of the authors. My understanding is
that this information might be used to contact the authors in
case of questions, errata, ... At least this happened in the past.

For example
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3237.txt
has 7 authors. I know that at least 4 affiliations have changed
and at least you can't reach me anymore via the given e-mail
address or telephone number.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:24:00 -0800

> address or telephone number.

This is not the problem ORCID addresses, except indirectly.
It's a way to establish that the author Melinda Shore who
worked at Cisco is the same author Melinda Shore who worked
at the Center for Research Libraries.  It is NOT a contact
mechanism, a personal tracking mechanism, etc.

Melinda

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:29:04 +0200

> mechanism, a personal tracking mechanism, etc.
Agreed. Maybe the wrong thread... I replied to a statement
that the authors e-mail addresses went stale...

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:44:44 -0400

>>> in the RFC and is used to forward e-mail to another account.

Me too!  I would even suggest that all I-D authors, at the very least, 
should need to register with the IETF to submit documents.  Optional 
@ietf.org offered.

> of RFCs and change the mapping for each document.

If there are other purposes for ORCID, then what are those?  These are 
things the IETF can do in general to improve its electronic 
participant and network of world wide contributors.

The idea is great.  By why use ORCID?  Why not Facebook? linked-in? 
etc. So many issues when its 3rd party.  While ORCID does offer an API 
(another conflict issue when API changes), I think the IETF should 
offer its own registry database of contributors.

-- 
HLS

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:58:40 -0400

> mechanism, a personal tracking mechanism, etc.

But how much of a problem is that?  Why not advocate gmail.com, 
google+, facebook.com, linked-in?  I registered at ORCID and it found 
a similar named registrant.  It only wanted to know if it was me, if 
not then continue.  But all the newsletter spam potential and privacy 
issues and even more in there, well, scared me.  It had multiple 
levels of privacy to select and too much reading required to follow 
it.  So I punted on that.

Why can't the IETF offers its own signup requirement for I-D 
submissions where a contact id can be provided?   The focus should be 
within the @IETF.ORG, not try to steer folks to use some 3rd party 
contact id where the IETF has no legal hold or control of any kind, in 
case, well, of the many things that can happen.

Thanks

-- 
HLS

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:10:38 -0400

> it into the xml2rfc schema and noting its existence.

What would the ORCID reference look like? My understanding is that it
would look like this: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0437-3333

Very few people use the uri element in the author block. (I count zero
in the currently extant internet-drafts XML files.) Its intended use
really is for the author to put in whatever URI they care to that helps
identify them. Its usage is directly parallel to a person's postal, fax
and email addresse. So plugging an ORCID into the URI element seems to
fit that usage perfectly.

    Tony Hansen

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:52:08 +0000

On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
 wrote:

> Me too!  I would even suggest that all I-D authors, at the very least, should need to register with the IETF to submit documents.  Optional @ietf.org offered.

Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places would be useful, and that single identifier is not going to be an @ietf.org email address.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:08:22 -0400

On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places would be useful,

Would it? Why?

I publish some papers in other places. I wear substantially different hats in other areas -- drafts published in the IETF reflect (in theory) IETF consensus, so they are not really *my* views, they are the views of a group of folk.

So, it is not that folk can read a document in another context and then say "Wow, that's interesting, let me see what Warren's views on IETF subjects is" and then go find *my* IETF views (if they wanted that, looking at mailing lists is probably a better option :-))

I guess a universal identifier could be useful so that future employers / people in bars could look me up, see that I've contributed to N documents in M SDOs and then be all impressed. 

This does not seem very useful to me.

W

> and that single identifier is not going to be an @ietf.org email address.

--
Consider orang-utans.
In all the worlds graced by their presence, it is suspected that they can talk but choose not to do so in case humans put them to work, possibly in the television industry. In fact they can talk. It's just that they talk in Orang-utan. Humans are only capable of listening in Bewilderment.
-- Terry Practhett

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:08:34 -0400

> Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish Academic papers. Using the…

Then for these unique individuals, a single source id is useful for 
them and should be recommended to consolidate contact consistent and 
persistent information.  People are increasingly doing that now with 
what was once alias junk domains, i.e. gmail.com, google+, even 
facebook, twitter, etc. I know I have move away from a using a 
corporate id in public that are now protected (in spirit) by ADSP and 
DKIM.  But as a total, don't you think the ietf.org will benefit in 
the long run maintaining its own registry?

-- 
HLS

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:11:44 -0800

On 9/17/13 1:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the
>> IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as
>> IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish Academic papers. Using the
>> same identifier for all these places would be useful,
> 
> Would it? Why?

It's useful to librarians/archivists/people who organize things.

Melinda

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:19:34 -0300

Yes, you can do this using RDFa [1] into HTML tags. If Dr. Krafft had
used RDFa so his page:

a. Will be a entry point and used as SPARQL[2] queries. This entry point
will be found in his contribuition to, or participation in the IETF
(e.g. in the Attendance List of the IETF meetings).
b. Could be subjected to a destiller[3] to obtain a RDF / RDFS / OWL file.
c. This file will be part of an (upper) ontology for the IETF, with
specific vocabulary (or metadata) as DCMI[4].
d. And so on...

Julião
A simple example: http://www.braga.eti.br/People/Juliao_Braga/. Get the
source of this page. You will see the vocabulary used into the HTML tags.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/
[4] http://dublincore.org/

Em 16/09/2013 13:49, Scott Brim escreveu:
> It's a good idea but I would generalize it.  Why have a system just for
> I*?  I would allow people to provide a pointer to their public
> information in one (or more?) of many places.  For example,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:13:07 +1200

> It's useful to librarians/archivists/people who organize things.

It's very useful to people who maintain citation databases, where
uniquely identifying authors is necessary.

It's practically essential for academics whose career depends on
attribution of publications and on citation counts (and for the
people who hire or promote them).

At first sight, it doesn't seem to matter too much for the IETF itself,
until the day we have two authors with the same name, or one author
with two names. I think we have several instances of the latter, and
I can't really tell you easily if the following set of RFC authors
contains 10 people or more:

A. Li, C. Li, D. Li, H. Li, J. Li, K. Li, T. Li, X. Li, Y. Li, Z. Li.

A. Li, who authored RFC 2363, is an especially interesting case.
Probably the same person as A. Lin, who authored RFC 2764, but
worked for a different company.

I see that R.T. Braden, R. Braden and B. Braden have all authored
RFCs. One person or three?

In other words, objective identification would actually help sometimes.

   Brian

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Sep 2013 01:08:51 -0000

>Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the IETF. Some of our
>participants also publish at other SDOs such as IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish
>Academic papers. Using the same identifier for all these places would be useful, and
>that single identifier is not going to be an @ietf.org email address.

If you want Yahoo mail or gmail or pobox.com, you know where to find it.

Or people here are, I expect, mostly able to arrange for their own
vanity domains.

R's,
John, [email-masked]

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Sep 2013 01:11:35 -0000

>people who hire or promote them).

Gee, several of the other John Levines have published way more than I
have.  If what we want is citation counts, confuse away.

R's,
John

PS: If you think I think this topic has been beaten to death and back,
you wouldn't be mistaken.

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:14:22 +1000

Currently, IETF standards activity carries little or no weight for an
academic career profile. It doesn't appear to have a weighting compared to
peer review publication. I think this is a shame, because the contribution
is as substantive, if not more so. And, since time is limited and choices
have to be made, I believe good students/postdocs don't come into our space
because the payback isn't there compared to submission into the peer-review
process.

(happy to be corrected. this is a belief, not a proven theory)

On that basis, things we do which make it easier for academic and research
assessment processes for STEM careers to consider our work as 'worthy' are
good and useful, because they help to direct skilled new brains into our
zombie pool.

I think ORCID would be the kind of thing which helps.

-G

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:44:11 -0400

Checking out the ORCID site, I noticed that when manually adding a
work, one of the possible external IDs is "Request for Comments". So
they certainly seem to be aware of the RFC series. The site already
has the ability to search various external databases to automate the
process of adding works, but doesn't have the ability to search the
RFC database for works. It would be a great addition to the site if it
could.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:46:20 +0200

> (happy to be corrected. this is a belief, not a proven theory)

I can confirm your theory, at least regarding me.
I come from academia. I came with some enthusiasm, happy to try to get
involved in IETF activities; I subscribed to few WG mailing list, but
after some time I discovered that (unfortunately) the payback for unit
of work was much less than just publishing  scientific paper.  So, I
unhappily unsubscribed from most of the ML and I stay here, lurking in
the background, waiting for some interesting subject...

Too bad.

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:36:40 +0100

On 17 September 2013 20:14, Michael Tuexen
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>> this.

+1

> Really?
> Each RFC lists the addresses of the authors.

There are, in the RfC I used as an example, far more acknowledged
contributors, than authors. No addresses for those contributors are
given.

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:41:36 +0100

On 17 September 2013 20:44, Hector Santos <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The idea is great.  By why use ORCID?  Why not Facebook? linked-in? etc. So
> many issues when its 3rd party.

Facebook, LinkedIn (and other such services) are commercial, and
proprietary. Their data is not available under a CC0 licence and their
software is not open source. ORCID's - as I've already pointed out -
are.

> While ORCID does offer an API (another
> conflict issue when API changes),

Again, the software and data is open.

> I think the IETF should offer its own
> registry database of contributors.

Why reinvent the wheel?  Even if done, that would not preclude the use of ORCID.

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:43:26 +0100

On 17 September 2013 20:58, Hector Santos <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But all the newsletter spam potential and privacy issues

> IETF has no legal hold or control of any kind, in case, well, of the many
> things that can happen.

Please elaborate on these "issues" and "things", in order that
specific concerns can be addressed.

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:45:26 +0100

> would look like this: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0437-3333

That is correct.

> fit that usage perfectly.

What address block? Please refer to the listing of my name in RFC
6350; noting that I am not listed as an "author".

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:52:07 +0100

On 17 September 2013 21:13, Hector Santos <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> On 17 September 2013 14:37, Hector Santos <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to me to be a conflict of interest issue.
>>
>>
>> Please explain where this conflict supposedly lies.
>
>
> Too many to list.

Then please list a few.

> Why not gmail.com, google+, facebook.com, linked-in, and
> so forth?

I believe that is at least the third time you have asked a variant of
that question; I have just answered at the first.

>>> I support the basic concept but why not use a IETF registry instead?
>>
>>
>> To avoid duplicating work already done, for one.
>
>
> But farming this registry out to a 3rd party is problematic, at many levels.

Again, please list some, so that we may discuss specifics, rather than
vague assertions.

>>> Solves several of the conflict of interest concerns, including about 3rd
>>> party entities disappearing, losing support, etc.

>> I have already addressed the "entities disappearing, losing support"
>> myth in an an earlier email.

> You have no guarantee ORCID will be tomorrow

We have guarantees that the software and data will be available openly.

>  nor gmail.com, google+,
> facebook.com, linked-in, nor tomorrows fad will stick around for ever.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

> Even
> then, the means of contract can also chance. Will ORCID keep up?

What do you mean by "means of contract"? Keep up with what?

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:58:04 +0100

> RFC database for works. It would be a great addition to the site if it

That's certainly doable, but may require the IETF to enter into a
partnership agreement with ORCID, The details are outside my area of
expertise, but I'd be happy to broker a contact if that would help
anyone.

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:04:52 -0400

> 6350; noting that I am not listed as an "author".

Hmmm, I just re-read your original message to [email-masked]. What I had
originally taken as a complaint about getting a way to have a unique id
(in this case, an ORCID) for the authors was instead a complaint about
getting a unique id for the people listed in the acknowledgements.

I can't say I have a solution for that one.

    Tony Hansen

---

From: Andy Mabbett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:30:03 +0100

On 18 September 2013 14:04, Tony Hansen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I just re-read your original message to [email-masked]. What I had

It wasn't a complaint, but a suggested solution, for both authors and
other named contributors.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:59:38 -0400

--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:30 +0100 Andy Mabbett
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I just re-read your original message to [email-masked]. What I
>> had originally taken as a complaint about getting a way to
>> have a unique id (in this case, an ORCID) for the authors was
>> instead a complaint about getting a unique id for the people
>> listed in the acknowledgements.
>> 
> It wasn't a complaint, but a suggested solution, for both
> authors and other named contributors.

Andy, we just don't have a tradition of identifying people whose
contributed to RFCs with either contact or identification
information.  It is explicitly possible when "Contributors"
sections are created and people are listed there, but contact or
identification information is not required in that section,
rarely provided, and, IIR, not supported by the existing tools.

That doesn't necessarily mean that doing so is a bad idea
(although I contend that getting it down to listings in
Acknowledgments would be) but that making enough changes to both
incorporate the information and make it available as metadata
would be a rather significant amount of work and would probably
reopen policy issues about who is entitled to be listed.

For those who want to use ORCIDs, the suggestion made by Tony
and others to just use the author URI field is the path of least
resistance and is usable immediately.  A URN embedding has
several things to recommend it over that (mostly technical
issues that would be clutter on this list).   You would need to
have a discussion with the RFC Editor as to whether, e.g.,
ORCIDs inserted as parenthetical notes after names in
Contributor sections or even acknowledgments would be tolerated
or, given a collection of rules about URIs in RFCs, removed, but
you could at least do that in I-Ds without getting community
approval.

If you want and can justify more formal recognition for ORCIDs
as special and/or required, you haven't, IMO, made that case
yet.  Perhaps more important from your point of view, if you
were, impossibly, to get that consensus tomorrow, it would
probably be years [1] before you'd see complete implementation.

best,
   john

[1] Slightly-informed guess but I no longer have visibility into
ongoing scheduling and priority decisions.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Sep 2013 14:53:52 -0000

>contributors, than authors. No addresses for those contributors are

As far as I can tell, nobody else considers that to be a problem.

I have written a bunch of books and looked at a lot of bibliographic
records, and I have never, ever seen any of them try to catalog the
acknowledgements.  Indeed, in many books the acknowledgemnents are
deliberately very informal, e.g., "thanks to Grandma Nell for all the
cookies and to George for his unwavering support."  George turns out
to be his dog.

R's,
John

PS: On the other hand:
http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/On-the-Internet-nobody-knows-you-re-a-dog-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i8562841_.htm

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:59:01 -0500

> reopen policy issues about who is entitled to be listed.

If I learned nothing else while mis-spending the mid-2000s talking about 
IETF process change, it's that if you want anything to change, take the 
first step toward changing it.

If you can come up with a URN definition for ORCID and stuff it into 
your own author block as a URI without asking for permission or tooling 
changes, and you think doing so would be helpful, do it.

If three people include ORCIDs in their contact information during the 
next two years, we're probably done. If 300 people do it, we can talk 
about whether that turned out to be useful, and whether taking some 
other step would be useful, too.

There have been (counting me) four sitting ADs posting on this 90-email 
thread, plus another six or so former ADs, including a former IETF 
chair, plus at least six or so WG chairs, plus other participants of 
good mind and good hearts. I'm thinking that if it was possible to 
reason what the right answer should be, we would have all agreed.

Perhaps we've all agreed ("dear Jari, did we all agree?"), but if not, 
the next step could be to try something, and see if it's good enough, or 
if we need to try something else.

Spencer

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:09:32 -0800

> reason what the right answer should be, we would have all agreed.

I found the discussion incredibly annoying because for the
most part the people raising issues didn't understand what
the ORCID identifier represents, they don't understand who
its audience is, they don't understand how bibliographic
metadata are used, etc., and yet they plowed on, undeterred
by their own lack of familiarity with the problem space.
I think it is possible to reason what the right answer should
be, but not in this environment.

Melinda