--On Thursday, 27 June, 2002 11:12 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:30:21 EDT, John C Klensin said: > >> 2000.04.01" or "first submitted 1999.12.25". Or the author >> could choose to list each version number, the date, and >> perhaps a brief summary of major ideas introduced. > > You'd have to do this, in case the "prior art" was something > introduced between -03 and -04 due to working group > discussion.... Again, I am less interested in a firm rule (or discussions or such rules) in this case as much as I am about giving someone a strong indication that there might have been something published of interest, something that they had best track down before swearing that they have good reason to believe that no prior art exists. Whether, at that point, they try to obtain the old I-D (and I don't think this provides any justification for re-visiting our policies on availability of those documents), or contact the author, or believe that everything in the last version was in the first one or was obvious from it, or pretend ignorance, is really a separate matter. john