On 1/28/2016 11:50 AM, Theodore V Faber wrote:
It seems to me that I-Ds are an interesting case. They are a series of
documents whose stated purpose is to be ephemeral in order to promote
exchange of half-formed ideas. Preserving them for the ages seems to
undermine that intent.
The confusion on this is mixing 'status' with 'availability'. The fact
that a document is no longer considered active does not mean that it
should become inaccessible.
And indeed, that's the reason I-Ds remain available after the time out.
Yeah, and I seem to recall some kind of rathole/vortex around what the
original intent of I-Ds was vs. what they are today. I’ll stipulate the
position above rather than head anywhere near that.
IMO the confusion lies with the concept of "ephemeral" vs. "but I
*really* want it, even though I should have no right to it", which led
to a redefinition of the concept of "ephemeral" as it applies to IDs.
See below...
The same point should apply to all public IETF materials, IMO.
The materials are likely to become useful to future researchers. But we
cannot expect current researchers to do the archival work now, in
anticipation of those needs. The responsibility for helping those folk
in the future lies with the IETF community itself, now.
Future networking researchers or future historians?
Or future litigation?
The redefinition of IDs in particular was driven by a concern that these
documents might be particularly useful in disproving patent claims.
I still firmly believe it remains a disservice to the community to have
changed the concept of ID expiration for the primary benefit of lawyers.
Joe