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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 09:49 20-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>post-expiration.  I think that, as a community, we ought to
>respect those assumptions more than saying, effectively, "we are
>going to maintain a public archive no matter what commitments
>you thought were made to you because we can and because we don't
>think you will actually sue us".  The latter is just bad for the
>community, whether it "works" or not.

In a past century there was a discussion about maintaining a public 
archive of expired I-Ds.  There is a striking difference in the 
arguments; there wasn't much discussion about the legal 
side.  Nowadays an individual has to hire a practicing lawyer from 
the state of Virginia before making any contribution.

It was also argued that the IETF would need a policy to decide on 
whether to turn I-Ds into an archival series.  IENs and RFCs where 
mentioned.  In those ancient times the question was also about 
distribution instead of publication.  It was also pointed out that it 
was better not to perpetuate bad ideas.  There wasn't any mention of 
the social contract.  At a guess it was probably because everything 
was not a matter of "rights" or legal issues.  Or it might be that 
social contracts were part of the obvious.

A sift of long disagreements might show that the sensible "opposing" 
argument is often missed because of the sugarcoating.  A dismissive 
attitude might also have something to do with that.

Consensus is when no man or woman is left standing on the battlefield.

Regards,
-sm