--On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 23:13 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
...
There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired
document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that
it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and
the text you cite later goes on to talk about the tombstone
file that replaced it in the repository, which we can easily
see when we go to the datatracker entry for an expired I-D.
And then the statement you cite further goes on to say this:
An expired I-D may be unexpired when necessary to further
the work of the IETF, including IETF liaison with other
standards bodies. Such action will be taken by request of
an IESG member, a chair of the working group associated
with the I-D, or one of the document authors.
That *clearly* implies that it's not *gone*, else how could it
be unexpired when necessary, by anyone's request?
Barry,
Without trying to figure out whether or not I agree with Joe,
the key question has never been, IMO, whether or not the IETF
has the right to _keep_ expired documents. Keeping them is
clearly necessary to un-expire them, as you note, and has a
number of other significant advantages and useful properties.
As far as I know, a file of expired I-Ds have been maintained
since I-Ds were introduced as a tool.
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply "guarantee to have available for retrieval
over the network by any interested party, with no requirement
for a special request". It seems to me that it is only the
latter that is of interest here and only the latter that is the
subject of the proposed policy. "Remove from public archive"
does not imply "it is gone, forget it ever existed" either, only
making it inaccessible for retrieval except perhaps in response
to other court orders or for other good causes that might be
permitted.
I don't have an opinion or intend to make any claim as to which
this part of the discussion turned fishy, but the smell of red
herring does not help advance discussions.
john