Mike,I would suggest that the relevant AD speak to the authors about publishing -18 as an informative RFC, which can then be superseded once the ARK spec completes.There was a time, in the distant sands of the past, when I-Ds actually did disappear from the IETF systems after they expired, but there were third party sites (I seem to recall Waterstones) that conveniently achieved all of them. Having expired drafts available directly from the IETF systems is a necessary convenience.Cheers,AndyOn Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 4:13 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi -
I got curious when I saw a draft being published with a version number of -33 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kunze-ark-33. I got even more curious when I noticed that -00 of that ID had been uploaded back in 2001. So I read the intro in the -33 version and found this:
This is a transitional draft. The ARK Alliance Technical Working Group (https://wiki.lyrasis.org/display/ARKs/Technical+Working+Group) is in the process of revising the ARK spec via a series of Internet- Drafts. While the spec is in transition, new implementors should follow https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kunze-ark-18.-18 having been uploaded in 2013.
I'm not sure there's anything that can or should be done, but IDs are supposed to be transient documents that either go away or lead to an RFC. Looking at the update history for this document, I'm pretty sure the draft system has been co-opted to be a standards repository for this specification. AFAICT, this draft has never been submitted - in 20 years! - to any RFC stream for publication and that's at least a violation of the spirit of the ID system. I.e. a violation of:
It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress.Perhaps we may want to think about making URL references to previous (or long expired) versions quite a bit less stable to avoid gaming of the system like this? Or prohibit updates of draft chains once a draft has been expired for a year?
Or leave it be?
Mike
I meant "archived", not "achieved". :-)
Cheers,
Andy
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 5:26 PM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
