touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU (Joe Touch) wrote on 12.09.04 in
Kai Henningsen wrote:
touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU (Joe Touch) wrote on 11.09.04 in
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Can we PLEASE do as Melinda says - change the policy now for new drafts?
That may have a chilling effect on new drafts. I.e., this isn't as
simple as "let's just change it now for future stuff".
"Chilling effect" - from *publishing* already-published material that's
already copied all over the net?
Authors might wait longer to "publish" IDs, since they'd be officially
citable (once they're public, despite any instructions to the contrary
in the body).
Huh? Nothing changes in that regard. *Real* official citing is absolutely
untouched, and the other works via the unofficial repositories now.
They'd wait longer to submit, to collect sections, etc.,
rather than turning in half-written things with calls for additional
I cannot see why.
The other, attractive alternative is to bury the ISOC in ID versions,
such that previous versions are individually basically useless.
Nor can I see the motivation, or even the mechanism, here.
How would that effect work on material meant for RFCs, or for working
group work (where the list archives are already public forever)?
See above - that's exactly the point. It puts a 'wait, this is going to
be published - is it ready for that?' hurdle in the loop, one that the
ID process was designed to avoid.
Except it doesn't, really.
And if it works on some other kind of draft, would we actually care?
IMO, changing the policy would indeed be "making the problem worse".
I have yet to see a coherent argument for that.
I have yet to see a coherent argument for keeping the ID series if it's
archived publicly. Why do we need to see the entire process - in public
- of editing and revision? And if we do, why do we need two separate
series to do this?
It's not a document series, it's preserving history - exactly the same way
that the mailing list archives do, using the exact same arguments. (And
incidentally, the exact same situation wrt. "getting published".)
If you argue that you want to abolish the mailing list archives, I think
you'll find strong opposition; I certainly do not see why the I-D
situation is any different.
Ietf mailing list