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

You could do an opt-out period, say 6 months, before publishing
the database.  With sufficient publicity, say periodic reposting
of the opt-out announcement on the ietf list, this seems to
strike a balance between the unspecified policy of the past
and a new policy for the future.  

This seems like a more-than-sufficient amount of care given
the fact that the data is already available in numerous
locations on the network.  

However, I don't think you even need to do an opt-out 
requirement.  Times change.  The data exists on the net.  
The IETF needs to keep a full archive for legal reasons
even if it doesn't allow FTP access by the public.  Why
should lawyers with subpoenas get access to the database
and members of the community can't?  We should simply
remove the access control.

Regards,

Carl

> 
> bil sez:
>         ah... but said RFC did not exist at the time my IDs 
>         went out. and my cursory perusal of said RFC seems
>         to indicate that it is mute on materials submitted
>         into the IETF process in times that pre-date said 
>         RFC existance.
> 
> fully agree - that was not my purpose in providing teh pointer - I
> just wanted you (and others) to know what today's rules are
> 
>         that said, it could be that the 40,000 or so legacy
>         draft authors won't care, but it would be sound hygiene
>         to ask them if they mind if RFC 3667 rules would apply
>         to their contributions.  
> 
> you are kidding - right?
> 
> Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

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