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

Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com> Tue, 14 September 2004 16:27 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 MAA22326; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7GDy-0001Ik-LR; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:32:11 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7Fm8-0007wt-3o; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:03:24 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C7FdA-0005e7-9s for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:54:08 -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 LAA20135 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C7Fi5-0000eY-8D for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:59:14 -0400
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2004 08:55:49 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com [171.71.163.34]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i8EFrXxk029358 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com (che-vpn-cluster-1-52.cisco.com [10.86.240.52]) by mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with SMTP id ATW47574; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by cisco.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:21 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:52:21 -0400
From: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20040914155220.GH1676@sbrim-w2k01>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <Pine.HPX.4.58.0409131450280.22167@wells.cisco.com> <200409141449.i8EEnJH7015772@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200409141449.i8EEnJH7015772@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 10:49:19AM -0400, Eric Rosen allegedly wrote:
> 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. 

Also it's impossible.

> 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. 

In the current situation, with the IETF pretending that old versions are
not accessible, and with drafts apparently disappearing as they change
WG status or become RFCs, people have to work very hard to find out if a
particular draft is outdated.  This is a major factor in their depending
on wrong information.  So, instead of trying to suppress information,
which we can't, we should create and offer the meta-information people
need to avoid mistakes.  

> 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. 

Suppose they could get them from some reliable source (e.g. IETF) and
also had extremely available meta-info?  

swb

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