On 1/12/2022 7:44 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
If there is some kind of abuse you are aiming to quell, some examples might
be helpful.
Hi Larry -
It's not so much about quelling abuse as it might be in reinforcing
expectations.
This has been the expectation basically from the first moment that the
ID system was created (right after the meeting at Boulder NCAR):
It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress"
And that was reinforced in some ways by the original manual submission
model for IDs. Over time, the tools have changed some of that calculus
and most drafts get posted without human intervention, and the old
versions of a draft now have fairly stable references as a side effect
of how the tooling was built.
All I'm really saying here is that it may be time to review that
expectation and retain it, expand on it or revise it.
In the instant case, removing the old ID versions of draft-kunze-ark or
changing the locator for the old versions might cause problems for the
ARK community. But not being able to remove (or "move" URL wise) those
documents seems to be counter to the plain text intentions of RFC2026
section 2.2 as well as other IETF statements of procedures.
Perhaps 2026 no longer correctly expresses the status of IDs?
Mike
