% Reason 2:
%
% "We considered that back in 1997, it sounded really cool then, but nobody
% knew how to make it work so we didn't pursue it".
%
% I think reason 2 is the more compelling i
This is sound. A couple of folks I have great respect for both came up
with the same basic thought, that we should revisit failed ideas every
decade or so to validate the the underlying presumptions/assumptions
are still true.
However. Some IDs that I have generated in the past five years were generated
with the following conditions.
------------
This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance with
Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF with any
rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It
is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as "work in progress."
-----------
Two key points here. The first paragraph explicitly denys the IETF from
doing anything w/ the document other than publishing it as an ID.
The second point is that the document, as submitted, is only valid, AS an ID,
for a maximum of six months from the instance of inital publication by
the IETF.
So, at this point, the document in question is not an Internet Draft, valid
or otherwise.
Does the "IETF" or ISOC have the right to reconsitute it? Without the authors
consent? What about attribution if it is morphed into an ISOC approved
ID?
What constitutes "validity"?
--bill