Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison

[Steven Blake <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 13:23 -0500, David Harrington wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> It appears to me the drafts have already expired.
> You can refer to expired drafts in an Informational document, using an
> approach similar to this:
> 
>    The XYZ encoding was proposed in a draft document submitted to the PCN
> WG in <October
>    2006>. The PCN WG chose to not advance this draft.
> 
> 
> This way there is no reference to the expired draft, and the intentions to
> not carry the drafts forward is easy to see.
> 
> Now, as to whether publishing them as historical is the right way:
> How much more detail is in the drafts that will be lost if we just let
> them expire?
> Is it important to the industry to keep a record of that historical
> detail, or just a summary of the ideas in those drafts and why they didn't
> work.
> I can understand that academically, it might be nice to have these
> published as historical records, but I tend to agree that having them
> published as RFCs could confuse people who are not really knowledgeable
> about IETF practice and the difference in types of RFCs.
> If the summary seems adequate, then I recommend letting the drafts
> disappear.
> You should make sure all your documents do not contain any references to
> those drafts.

I think this last bit of advice applies even if the WG chooses to
publish the expired drafts.

Now, are there any volunteers to revise these drafts and get them in
shape for WG last call?


Regards,

// Steve