[Top] [All Lists]

Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

2004-09-10 10:21:30

Melinda Shore wrote:

On Friday, September 10, 2004, at 09:30 AM, scott bradner wrote:

but, to me, its quite silly to pretend that IDs actually disapear
from the net just because teh IETF takes it off of our web site

I don't think anybody's pretending that, but if there's an agreement
between the IETF and people who submit ids that the documents are
going to be disappeared from the IETF archive in six months, I think
it's kind of a problem to change that agreement retroactively.

As do I; this is a severely beaten horse.

I also don't mind if new IDs have an opt-in (e.g., via one of a proscribed set of phrases in a BCP), but there needs to be a way for _any_ ID (even WG IDs) to be ephemeral by design. I would, BTW, prefer an opt-in than an opt-out.

Just because others illegally republish them doesn't mean it's appropriate to give up on this issue.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see indecision about what to do
about old ids seep into indecision about what to do about new
ids going forward.  It seems to me that a new policy saying that
any ids submitted in the future will be archived by the IETF unless
the authors object is far better than allowing the current
situation to continue.  That wouldn't prevent us from going back
and revisiting the problem of old drafts at some future time,


Ietf mailing list
This message was passed through ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator (ietf_admin(_at_)ngnet(_dot_)it).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Ietf mailing list