In message <20000920152730T(_dot_)magda(_at_)netinsight(_dot_)se>, Magnus
Danielson typed:
For most of the time it is just plain stupid, however, there are material
wich
is published in ID form but later down the line is being dropped but still
form
the fundament for design decissions made in IDs making it all the way to RFC.
very good point - one of the marvellus thing about the older RFCs is
that they typically DO still inlude the discussio nthat led to the
design choices expressed - in recent years, we have tended to move
more towards the ieee/itu/iso in anonymising work, and in removing discussion
of the alternates and reasons for not using them from final versions
of RFCs...this is a big mistake.
Now, if you are going to write a book and want to discuss this backdrop and
give a fuller picture then you will have to refer to these IDs. This is
really
a problem which the IETF has aswell, since this material is not available it
is
not as easy for a newcommer to get the full picture as those involved in the
process has. For instance IPv6 has this problem. When you are in the process,
you should feel that it is the Right Thing to drop this old material, but the
question is if it is really the Right Thing in the long run. Some of these
IDs
should really be considered as being published as Informational RFCs for the
purpose of giving the background material.
agree completely....
I'm not sure of the next case. Any body observed this?
3. An RFC refers to an Internet Draft.
Never (except as "work in progress", as noted above - and then the draft
is
not mentioned by filename).
This is a case where having this old background material could be valuble to
have.
Note, certainly will not all IDs be of interest, but some of them do
represent
knowledge which should be considered worthy of keeping.
IMHO this is a problem, but it is not apparent for everyone being "in" the
process, but some is aware of this...
of course, just coz a book is printed doesnt mean it can't be
obsoleted too (c.f. the old testament :-) arggggggg, no.....i mean
2nd editions can fix typos in earlier ones is all, not darwin versus
creation....
cheers
jon