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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 07/09/2012 15:48, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
> ...
>> Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a good
>> idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire gracefully.

Speaking as a document reviewer for both Gen-ART and the Independent
Submission stream, and for that matter as a generic reviewer of various
WG documents, I consider the I-D archive to be an invaluable resource.
Looking back to see when a particular change was made can be quite
important.

Speaking as an author of I-Ds, I find the archive very useful when trying
to figure out if an idea is new, or tracking back from a WG mail archive
to an I-D that is discussed therein.

Basically, the archive noticeably enhances the way I work on IETF
documents.

Also, I think there is a definite benefit to having a *public* archive
of potential prior art. Anyway who suspects prior art exists in an old
I-D has the possibility of searching for confirmation. If there was no
public archive, only a subpoena would find the prior art.

> +1
> 
> Let's not forget there was a reason for expiration.

Expired != invisible

Also, expiration, as a fact of experience, does not prevent I-Ds
being widely cited. I was quite embarassed at one point to discover
that draft-carpenter-metrics (expired 11/1996) was being cited as if
it had some authority, and I can assure you that its absence from any
public *.ietf.org directory did nothing to prevent the citations.
That's one example among hundreds, no doubt.

> I'm OK with the archive being public so long as at least the authors can
> remove an ID *without needing to provide a reason*.

Why? I-Ds are public speech. Generally, you can't erase public speech.
If I decide next week that this message was stupid, I can't erase
it from the mail archive. Why are I-Ds different?

Sometimes there might be valid reasons (like "I broke the copyright rules")
but I think you need to state a reason.

> Yes, removal from the IETF site will not expunge copies from the entire
> Internet, but the IETF site should set the example here, and respect the
> original intent of allowing an ID to expire.

I think making it clear that the archive contains expired documents is
necessary, but expiry by obscurity isn't going to work.

    Brian