Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 04:17 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 F24B91293E1 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:17:12 -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 H6rutM8S50es for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:17:11 -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 9DAE31293FF for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BC1B80F47; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:17:11 -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 824FBB80F46 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:17:10 -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 hspC0dhtKQnJ for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35D68B80F47 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:17:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 74272 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2017 04:17:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2017 04:17:03 -0000
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:16:41 -0000
Message-ID: <20170216041641.2990.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <16b1de26-942a-3ab3-06e5-6f74121d5503@rfc-editor.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
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: rse@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>
In article <16b1de26-942a-3ab3-06e5-6f74121d5503@rfc-editor.org> you write: > The cost >considerations that people have mentioned, however, do not take into >account the potential cost of recovery in such a situation where we >would need to restore the entire body of work from paper copies. I get the impression that there are some radically incompatible impressions of what paper copies would be for. Since it was my suggestion in the first place, here's some scenarios. Making and archiving paper copies is not intended to be a huge effort. Once or twice a year you print two copies of the XML and a page formatted version of recent RFCs on archival paper with stable toner or ink, and mail them to two libraries that are physically far apart, perhaps Stanford in California and the Deutsches Museum in Munich, where they file them away in boxes as they do with their other collections of "papers of donor X." It would be nice if someone were to OCR a few sheets of the printouts as they arrive, just to make sure they weren't totally botched, but I wouldn't think that would cost much, and as likely as not the libraries would do it for us. There are a lot of scenarios short of complete disaster where a paper archive could be useful. Perhaps, digital archivists have carefully copied and recopied everything periodically to ever more modern media to keep them readable. At some point they discover that the XML file for RFC 15,432 contains the XML for RFC 15,431 (two obscure and obsolete RFCs, which is why it took so long to notice), and since the files were confused three generations ago, the digital versions of 15,432 are unrecoverable. Or the archivists are surprised to discover that their copies of RFC 16,824 don't match, apparently because someone there were two forks in github and the version numbers don't match the dates and are out of sequence. A peek at the paper would help figure out which was the right one. As far as recovering everything from scratch, I agree that the chances of needing to do that while there is still a budget for the RFC Editor are remote. But if we look ahead a few years, the IETF was disbanded in 2066 because they'd still never figured out how to make IPv6 IoT stuff secure, and everyone had moved on to GGDR* anyway. The Internet Society disbanded shortly afterwards, since it had been on autopilot for a decade, and the revenue from the remaining 12,000 registrants in .ORG couldn't even pay for a part time director. So there is nobody and no budget to keep copying the bits, and they rot. Now it is 2116, and a grad student is working on the history of networking in the early 21st century. The digital archives are all dead, but I'd think that there's a pretty good chance that at least one set of the file boxes of paper is still readable, and in that era, the implants in her eyeballs can OCR them as fast as she can turn the pages. So that's why, even with no budget for recovery from paper, it makes sense. Please reconsider. R's, John * - Great Grand Daughter of RINA _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs John Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Craig Partridge
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Joe Touch
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Adam Roach
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Craig Partridge
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Joe Touch
- Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs Dave Crocker