When I read the original IESG statement, I thought it sloppily worded,
since it did not use the same terminology as in
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
which has been cited below.
I then wondered if the sloppy, as I saw it, wording might reflect less
than precise thinking in the semantics, and I think that the subsequent
posts have born that out. There are a lot of not-so-corner cases that
need considering. For me, the 'public I-D archive', as the statement
calls it, is of great value; some I-Ds keep doing U-turns and I need to
go back and see what has been there before. Also, I may want to
incorporate some material from a years old I-D that never got adopted.
And so on.
So I believe that everything should stay in that archive unless there is
a very good reason for it not to; court order but not that alone I
would add either or both of IESG vote (as for the approval of an I-D,
DISCUSS, ABSTAIN etc) and IETF Consensus.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
Cc: "IETF" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from
theIETF Web Site
I think it means "no longer current for the purposes of work and
discussion."
Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID
Guidelines
(written by the IESG):
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
8. Expiring
An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days from the date that
it
is posted on the IETF Web site (<http://www.ietf.org/id-info/>)
unless it is replaced by an updated version (in which case the
clock
will start all over again for the new version, and the old
version
will be removed from the I-D repository), or unless it is under
official review by the IESG (i.e., a request to publish it as an
RFC
has been submitted)...
I.e., this is not a matter of "interpretation".
'tis, apparently, because you are still interpreting it differently to
how I am.
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?
I'll also note, Joe, that you are the *only* one arguing this point.
Does anyone agree with Joe? If not, it seems fair to say that it
looks like you're well in the rough here.
Barry