Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Wed 05/Sep/2012 21:59:56 +0200 John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:02 -0700 SM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> At 09:04 05-09-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> That's an interesting but not very informative statement.
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg71391.html
> 
> Of course, there is a case to be made that, if we had a more
> sophisticated posting system that enforced the few rules we
> already have, it would not have been accepted and posted in the
> first place.  Individual drafts are supposed to be title
> draft-OneOfTheAuthorNames-foo-bar-NN.  This one didn't meet that
> rule.

The I-D /was/ named after one of the author names.  Although expired,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed
is still accessible.

> From the standpoint of those rules/conventions about naming at
> least, it is as if I posted something as draft-moonesamy-foobar-00
> or draft-carpenter-barfoo-00 in the hope that would get extra
> attention.

I removed much more than I added, so putting my name would have been
overly selfish.

> That said, the author in this particular case could presumably have
> posted draft-vesely-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00 and then
> persuaded the Secretariat that it replaced 
> draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00, thereby causing
> the latter to be removed from the _active_ I-D repository and moved
> off to the historical I-D archive.

That maneuver sounds more contrived than what I did.  I thought about
posting a new version with null content, or possibly with tombstone
text, but that would still have left version 00 in place.

In order to invalidate an archived version, we'd need a process
mechanically similar to rfc-editor's "Errata".  If visually winsome,
Errata's content could then be rendered the new way as well.