Re: [Tools-discuss] Content at notes.ietf.org is not archival

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 16 September 2021 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B533A1CF4; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Au2v0Y0kDAPA; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 551303A1DB0; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dcf6e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.207.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4H98B343txz2xNX; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:39:55 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Content at notes.ietf.org is not archival
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOeKxO6KOWyC8WBqUxYyqAwqYdKOesBN+2nxtWAy17Mbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:39:55 +0200
Cc: tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ADDEE9BD-790B-4E44-982B-DAA15F50722A@tzi.org>
References: <f2ea0c4f-9500-391d-b8d1-dcc3ac4a7b1c@nostrum.com> <CABcZeBOeKxO6KOWyC8WBqUxYyqAwqYdKOesBN+2nxtWAy17Mbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Working Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/JrEWSiMb8KsdSd9wLUT9vB_hnak>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:40:17 -0000

On 15. Sep 2021, at 21:21, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> This is the kind of PSA that is often made and ignored and then people come to rely on the existing state of affairs, making it hard to change, ISTM that if you want to actually have it be easy to deprecate the data then you probably want to make it actively unreliable now.

I’m not sure there isn’t an emoticon missing from this message…

The message reminds me a bit of Windows UAC and the idea that users are responsible for the reliability of their operating systems.
(One main reason that this never can work is that users have work to do and are not in a mode to interrupt their work for arcane unrelated activities.)

Here, users are effectively asked to make manual backups of work that has been done in notes.ietf.org.
Many people already occasionally make such backups, stash them away in some unreliable way; others won’t and will start making queries of who has a backup and whether that is the most recent one.  (This already has happened.  Don’t ask.)

Instead of burdening everyone with their own unstructured backup mechanisms, maybe it does make sense to keep something going at the IETF side.

(Being able to underlay a git repository would be the best technical solution that still keeps most responsibility on the user side.
But I don’t want to talk mechanism here, just that it is not enough to issue another RFC 6919 "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON’T)”.)

Grüße, Carsten