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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 17 February 2017 04:03 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 0442B129951 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:03:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, 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, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 ZHnweQzNNoNS for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:03:02 -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 4136B1294E3 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED513B81CA8; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:03:01 -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 A61A5B81CA8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:03:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 wCANPl1DYduN for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B827B81CA6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v1H44csQ016450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:04:39 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1487304279; bh=8a7JqmWuPOI5aN4iLlN1BBixtjvkafQ1akmY18W0fsE=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=WC1qXCKOowwGqeptMBf9GEgPkrj9Ct21T/p48Ka7dcjUY3Cbiino4b1F3S8Ba1IDt BmMGivOokjdkeLiGZUV9JeEr57GpeSWcjmVJy3vdhNxyxsFdkQAMSyL+4rm1b/5Ghe 7C/xF3sSmx8eVve3IxMvg7QvcJTAi9uYwFcnr/vw=
References: <CAHQj4CdfLdkreGx8SFXwOJP62cZHQ4t3oU8uaN44PYgrTXKqhg@mail.gmail.com> <a3e4426e-893f-01d3-6477-18a57d08fc50@isi.edu> <CAHQj4CdyX6bNr4tbCmssqGx0oeZiy5QvfxH6f6p62UcSPAnHUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <1f50207c-ddf6-fd23-dcef-cdbc85dadf17@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:02:41 -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>
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>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2/16/2017 2:49 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> Keep in mind that I do communicate occasionally with professional
> archivists.  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).


+1.  And given the observed controversy, this means asking a number of 
independent archivists.

I suggest then producing the union of their answers, not the intersection.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest