RE: archives (was The other parts of the report....

Eric, you specified exactly the right answer:

> In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's official 
> I-D page, enter a draft name,  and get a prominent pointer to 
> the  most recent version (even if it  is now an RFC  or a 
> draft with  a different name), along  with a less prominent 
> pointer to the thing they actually asked for. 

This is very feasible and should be done.

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Eric Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:49 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: archives (was The other parts of the report.... 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never  thought that  the IETF  was OBLIGATED to  "hide" 
> old  I-Ds; that seems a rather far-fetched interpretation of 
> anything in RFC 2026. 
> 
> However, I think  there is a real practical problem in  
> making the old i-d's
> be too  readily available.   I frequently get  messages 
> asking  me questions
> like "where  is draft-rosen-something-or-other-04.txt,  I 
> can't find  it" to which the answer is one of the following:
> 
> a. you want draft-rosen-something-or-other-23.txt, or
> 
> b. you want draft-ietf-somewg-something-or-other-05.txt, or
> 
> c. you want RFC 12345. 
> 
> What's happened is  that they have found some email  which 
> references a long outdated draft, and have no clue  how to 
> get to the most up-to-date version, which is what they really 
> want to see. 
> 
> If we make it  too easy to access the old drafts, a  lot of 
> people will just get the old drafts instead of being forced 
> to look for the more recent work.
> 
> Sure, people  who really want to  see the old  drafts should 
> be able  to get them,  but  people who  really  want to  see  
> the  most up-to-date  versions shouldn't get the old drafts 
> just because they only know an old draft name.
> 
> In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's official 
> I-D page, enter a draft name,  and get a prominent pointer to 
> the  most recent version (even if it  is now an RFC  or a 
> draft with  a different name), along  with a less prominent 
> pointer to the thing they actually asked for. 
> 
> If  that can't  be  done, it  might be  better  to keep  the 
> expired  drafts
> "officially  hidden".   Not  for  the   reasons  being  given 
>  by  our  more
> academically inclined  colleagues, but  for the practical  
> reasons described above.  Sure, the expired drafts might be 
> obtainable via Google, but getting something from  Google is  
> a bit  different than getting  it via  the IETF's official web page. 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf