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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Carl Malamud wrote:

> Hi Scott -
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the proceedings.  Having the i-d's published
> there certainly demonstrates how futile it is to pretend that we
> can erase history.  The position that Bill Manning and Joe Touch are
> taking reminds of when I was ordered by the Secretary-General of
> the ITU to erase all Internet copies of their standards.
> 
> I was a little puzzled by the strong reaction of both Bill Manning
> and Joe Touch.  They seem to be bringing up two points:
> 
> 1. Bill has pointed out that some I-D's are *not* offered in
> accordance with section 10 of rfc2026 and thus, as I understand
> his reasoning, he only granted a 6-month license to publish.
> 
> 2. Joe seems to take a stronger position, which is all I-D's are
> (or have been) granted only a 6-month license to publish.

SHOULD be. I understand that post 2026, the situation has changed, but 
only for the IETF. Not for third parties to republish.

But it is indeed confusing to grant the IETF rights in perpituity to 
publish something that EXPLICITLY is supposed to be removed from the 
public archive after 6 months.

> With all due respect, it seems to me that there is no prior
> policy on this subject and the texts are very much subject to
> differing interpretations.  I believe both Bill and Joe are taking
> very extreme positions on the subject and I'm not sure their views
> reflect anything resembling a prior policy, or even a universal
> understanding.  It seems like a very legalistic interpretation
> of a very vague policy, and (imho) that policy goes against
> core values like openess, and transparency.

It reflects a belief that there is value in providing a forum for 
ephemeral documents, and that open discussion is uniquely enabled by 
that forum. I.e., it would be useful to consider WHY this was the 
original intent. It had nothing to do with protecting IPR; quite the 
contrary. It provides freedom to revise without having the earlier 
versions cited.

If that's not perceived to be useful anymore, let's cut the baloney and 
just publish all drafts as RFCs and be done with it. They'd at least 
have a unique ID number (draft names aren't necessarily ensured unique), 
and they'd all be archived.

If it is perceived to be useful, then authors need to be able to opt-out 
of archives, and previous docs need to not be published without an opt-in.

Joe

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf