IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 16 February 2017 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E5412955E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1lZVPWca2_10 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30EDA124281 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0DDB8100C; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161CBB8100C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WphpDFHj-N4B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05B01B81009 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.81] (nib.isi.edu [128.9.160.81]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1GMq2Ac004960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Craig Partridge <craig@tereschau.net>
References: <CAHQj4CdfLdkreGx8SFXwOJP62cZHQ4t3oU8uaN44PYgrTXKqhg@mail.gmail.com> <a3e4426e-893f-01d3-6477-18a57d08fc50@isi.edu> <CAHQj4CdyX6bNr4tbCmssqGx0oeZiy5QvfxH6f6p62UcSPAnHUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <862cfe32-4b3e-e737-c649-dfbb18201e96@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:01 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CdyX6bNr4tbCmssqGx0oeZiy5QvfxH6f6p62UcSPAnHUA@mail.gmail.com>
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi, Craig,


On 2/16/2017 2:49 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> Hi Joe:
>
> Keep in mind that I do communicate occasionally with professional
> archivists. 
As do I, as recently as last week FWIW...

> They remain torn between the need to try to find a way to
> save digital artifacts and a strong sense that their solutions are
> likely to
> fail.
>
> I agree that asking a professional librarian is a fine solution.  But
> I would
> ask them the question in the form: would you prefer printed copies on
> archival paper or digital copy? (As opposed to the -- "can you archive
> digital material?" -- to which they feel obliged to try to say yes,
> but may
> prefer to say no).

Then perhaps the way forward is to suggest that the RFC Editor make the
RFCs available for archive at multiple sites, but to let those sites
determine the best way to preserve that material.

Joe
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email