Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > On 18-jan-04, at 23:17, grenville armitage wrote: [.] > > If it is important, it'll progress the work of some group in the > > IETF and be archived as an RFC. > > Really. What's the number for the GSE RFC again? Even current work such > as draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-07.txt stays in draft limbo for years. I suspect this speaks more to the focus of the authors of those documents than any particular lack in the I-D development process. IMO, of course :) [..] > > Yes, that's a major problem. Organizations need to clean out their > > clutter on a regular basis just like individuals do. > > This argument is bogus as long as mailing list archives for stuff like > draft announcements are kept. I don't quite see it that way. A mail list archive quite clearly conveys the sense of "this is a snapshot in time of things in the past" whereas our I-D repository has/had the semantics of "this is current thinking of someone, somewhere in the IETF" (for current <= 6 months). So I believe in mail archives far more than I believe in permanent I-D archives. [..] > Searching in such an archive is only possible if you know the search > terms in advance. For instance, the draft I mentioned earlier isn't > easily found when searching for "32 bit as number". I can't see how this would be improved by storing I-Ds in a well know, permanent location. You'd still have trouble searching inside the archive on ambiguous search terms. cheers, gja -- Grenville Armitage http://caia.swin.edu.au I come from a LAN downunder.