Re: Rivest's S-Expressions I-D no longer found

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 24 May 2023 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8492FC14CE44 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2023 20:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kYY9k5SVkw2M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2023 20:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04920C14CEFC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2023 20:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1q1f4o-00091p-Dv; Tue, 23 May 2023 23:22:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 23:21:51 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
cc: phill@hallambaker.com
Subject: Re: Rivest's S-Expressions I-D no longer found
Message-ID: <85452F1FF29E58F7A66F65FD@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IkV01MoW6lz6Wam-23ZZ8dqttho>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 03:22:18 -0000


--On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:38 -0400 John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> It appears that Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
> said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> 
>> While agreeing with John's point, the document in question
>> was originally submitted as an internet draft - May 4, 1997
>> draft-rivest-sexp-00.txt
> 
> That's the date on the draft but there is no evidence that it
> ever arrived at the IETF.
> 
> I still think this is a problem that is easier for MIT and/or
> the Internet Archive to solve than for us.

I agree but...

As I understand it, Don Eastlake has reached an agreement with
Ron Rivest to resurrect the document, put himself (Don) on as
co-author, make whatever changes are needed to meet contemporary
standards, and move it through the I-D process.   Unless Don
screws up in some major way (the odds of which I believe are
vanishingly small) that should make the 1997 version irrelevant.
I'd expect Don's new version would mention that it is an update
to a 1997 draft and identify any substantive changes (if he
doesn't want to --something else I consider thoroughly
unlikely-- we have IETF LC or discussions with the ISE to
convince him).  At the point that document is published as an
RFC or even a contemporary I-D (IPR rules and all), the 1997
version should be of purely historical interest (if that).  That
type of historical interest is exactly what the Internet Archive
is for (even if MIT --either CSAIL or Special Collections (aka
the Institute Archives) can't be persuaded to get the document
into a good place with a stable link).

On behalf of the SAADH (Society for Avoiding Abuse to Dead
Horses), can we stop kicking this one and move on?

    john