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

Melinda Shore wrote:

> On Friday, September 10, 2004, at 09:30 AM, scott bradner wrote:
> 
>> but, to me, its quite silly to pretend that IDs actually disapear
>> from the net just because teh IETF takes it off of our web site
> 
> I don't think anybody's pretending that, but if there's an agreement
> between the IETF and people who submit ids that the documents are
> going to be disappeared from the IETF archive in six months, I think
> it's kind of a problem to change that agreement retroactively.

As do I; this is a severely beaten horse.

I also don't mind if new IDs have an opt-in (e.g., via one of a 
proscribed set of phrases in a BCP), but there needs to be a way for 
_any_ ID (even WG IDs) to be ephemeral by design. I would, BTW, prefer 
an opt-in than an opt-out.

Just because others illegally republish them doesn't mean it's 
appropriate to give up on this issue.

> On the other hand, I'd hate to see indecision about what to do
> about old ids seep into indecision about what to do about new
> ids going forward.  It seems to me that a new policy saying that
> any ids submitted in the future will be archived by the IETF unless
> the authors object is far better than allowing the current
> situation to continue.  That wouldn't prevent us from going back
> and revisiting the problem of old drafts at some future time,
> either.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> _______________________________________________
> This message was passed through ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, 
> which is a sublist of ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. 
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML 
> Administrator (ietf_admin@ngnet.it).

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

Attachment: signature.asc