ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material

2000-10-01 15:00:02


Bill Manning wrote:

% Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
% >
% > > And what WG?  Internet Drafts were and are generated by Individuals w/o
% > > benefit of an associated WG.
% >
% > Precisely my point to Grenville.
%
% Our discussion had nothing to do with who the question of who
% *generates* I-Ds, but what makes them valid on an ongoing basis.
%
% gja

A key point about validity is the agreement btwn author(s) and the IETF.

Once an I-D is generated, I think the author's complicity is a given
that hardly needs to be stated.

Once the timer expires, the ID is not valid, as an ID.

And for practical purposes once it exists (which indeed the author
had some part in) an I-D's validity is independent of the author
until "the timer expires".

The IETF has lost
its chance to "capture" the information in the IETF process. IMHO, this
includes such IETF structures as WG, IESG, ADs, IAB, Secretary, et.al.

Hmmm.  My original suggested meaning for 'valid' focused on what
an outside observer might deduce from the term. If your only point
of argument is that I initially used words "an IETF WG" instead of
enumerating all the various IETF bodies who might use I-Ds to
capture ongoing work, then I think that's simply argumentation for
the sake of argument. I'd like closure, not some open ended
nitpicking.

The information reverts to the author(s).

Hmmm.. (well, modulo the fact that it is now irretrievably thrown to
the winds of random archiving across the Internet)

Of course all that may reflect what is. But personally the IETF
would be much better served if submitting an I-D wasn't some sort
of 6 month vanity press, but a recognized archive (i.e. understood
as such by authors before they submit) for scribblings of time-limited
validity.

cheers,
gja
________________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                    http://members.home.net/garmitage/
Bell Labs Research Silicon Valley