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

[Carl Malamud <[e-mail]>]

Sorry folks ... this is definitely a distinctly separate
thread from The Report.  :)  

Carl

> Folks,
> 
> I'm not sure whether this puts me in agreement with Paul
> Hoffman's "re-flogging" comment or not, but The Report was
> presented to the community as not interacting with the Standards
> Process at all.  Well, the issues about how to handle expired
> I-Ds, whether or not they expire, etc., etc., are definitely
> connected with the Standards Process.  So we either need to
> redefine what the report, and discussions about the report, are
> about, or this discussion needs to be taken into a distinctly
> separate thread.
> 
> Just my opinion, of course.
>    john
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, 11 September, 2004 13:48 -0700 Carl Malamud
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Ole -
> > 
> > I agree that the IETF has a special responsibility to properly
> > present the archive ... we can't simply lay a big ftp
> > directory out there and make no efforts to show how a
> > particular file fits in context.
> > 
> > On the other hand, ietf.org could certainly beg/borrow/steal
> > some of  the work being done in places like potaroo.net and
> > watersprings.org.   Some things that could be done include:
> > 
> > 1. Add some clear text that explains the role of the i-d
> > historical repository
> > 
> > 2. Link to previous and future versions of a draft (including
> > any resulting  RFC)
> > 
> > 3. Link to any relevant mailing list discussions
> > 
> > 4. Find related drafts or place the draft in the context of a
> > working group
> > 
> > 5. Add a very clear indication that the particular document in
> > question is "Expired"
> > 
> > As to citing work-in-progress instead of the final standard,
> > well, hmmm ... if we don't have our own repository, there
> > isn't much we can do.  On the other hand, if a
> > customer/reader/journalist were able to go to ietf.org and
> > pull up the document in question, perhaps it could be really
> > clear what the status is?  If we want to make clear that a
> > document is expired, it is much better to say so rather than
> > pretend it doesn't exist.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Carl
> > 
> >> 
> >> - Vendors are "stupid" and will claim compliance with a
> >> work-in-progress document instead of a final standard. This
> >>   is "very bad"
> >> 
> >> - Drafts often change along the way (including being
> >> completely discarded as "bad ideas") and we should discard
> >>   such snapshots in case someone gets the wrong idea from
> >>   reading one.
> >> 
> >> Needless to say, I don't really buy these arguments. As
> >> someone who publishes articles where the only existing
> >> reference might be an ID at the time of writing, I believe
> >> there are better mechanisms we could use (as we do with RFCs
> >> and the "Obsoletes/Obsoleted by" tags).
> >> 
> >> Ole
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Ole J. Jacobsen
> >> Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
> >> Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
> >> Tel: [phone]   GSM: [phone]
> >> E-mail: [e-mail]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ietf mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

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