Eric, you specified exactly the right answer:
In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's official
I-D page, enter a draft name, and get a prominent pointer to
the most recent version (even if it is now an RFC or a
draft with a different name), along with a less prominent
pointer to the thing they actually asked for.
This is very feasible and should be done.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Eric Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:49 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....
I've never thought that the IETF was OBLIGATED to "hide"
old I-Ds; that seems a rather far-fetched interpretation of
anything in RFC 2026.
However, I think there is a real practical problem in
making the old i-d's
be too readily available. I frequently get messages
asking me questions
like "where is draft-rosen-something-or-other-04.txt, I
can't find it" to which the answer is one of the following:
a. you want draft-rosen-something-or-other-23.txt, or
b. you want draft-ietf-somewg-something-or-other-05.txt, or
c. you want RFC 12345.
What's happened is that they have found some email which
references a long outdated draft, and have no clue how to
get to the most up-to-date version, which is what they really
want to see.
If we make it too easy to access the old drafts, a lot of
people will just get the old drafts instead of being forced
to look for the more recent work.
Sure, people who really want to see the old drafts should
be able to get them, but people who really want to see
the most up-to-date versions shouldn't get the old drafts
just because they only know an old draft name.
In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's official
I-D page, enter a draft name, and get a prominent pointer to
the most recent version (even if it is now an RFC or a
draft with a different name), along with a less prominent
pointer to the thing they actually asked for.
If that can't be done, it might be better to keep the
expired drafts
"officially hidden". Not for the reasons being given
by our more
academically inclined colleagues, but for the practical
reasons described above. Sure, the expired drafts might be
obtainable via Google, but getting something from Google is
a bit different than getting it via the IETF's official web page.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf