IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Sun, 12 September 2004 14:16 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17311; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:16:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6VE0-0001Wu-0I; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:21:04 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6V6L-0002hm-3n; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:13:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6V2W-00017q-3o for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:09:12 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16595 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:09:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from colo.khms.westfalen.de ([213.239.196.208] ident=Debian-exim) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6V6z-0001RK-Rh for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:13:51 -0400
Received: from khms.vpn ([10.172.192.2]:56792 helo=khms.westfalen.de ident=Debian-exim) by colo.khms.westfalen.de with asmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1C6V2U-00029T-L7 for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:09:11 +0200
Received: from root (helo=khms.westfalen.de) by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C6V2L-0006Zz-QO for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:09:01 +0200
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435); 12 Sep 2004 15:54:46 +0200
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:14:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9GjynSJXw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <41439AE7.6030703@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <66EDBDB3-0331-11D9-B4E7-000A95E35274@cisco.com> <050a01c497f6$567e4000$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> <050a01c497f6$567e4000$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> <41439AE7.6030703@isi.edu>
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1
X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Subject: Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228

touch@ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)  wrote on 11.09.04 in <41439AE7.6030703@isi.edu>:

> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> > Dear Harald-the-General-AD,
> >
> > Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new drafts?
>
> That may have a chilling effect on new drafts. I.e., this isn't as
> simple as "let's just change it now for future stuff".

"Chilling effect" - from *publishing* already-published material that's  
already copied all over the net?

That sounds rather ridiculous.

How would that effect work on material meant for RFCs, or for working  
group work (where the list archives are already public forever)?

And if it works on some other kind of draft, would we actually care?

> IMO, changing the policy would indeed be "making the problem worse".

I have yet to see a coherent argument for that.

MfG Kai

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

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status