On 14-Jan-22 06:55, David Borman wrote:
...> I personally don’t have any issues with old drafts remaining accessible somewhere. The key thing was to make it clear that these are draft documents, and that if vendors choose to include them in their marketing literature, it is still clear that these are draft documents.
Well yes. And every I-D for an effectively infinite length of time has said exactly that in its boilerplate [1]. It's beside the point that many people don't read the boilerplate. The fact that it's there is necessary and sufficient.
As for the public archive of expired I-Ds, it's a useful tool. I've used it, for
example, to track back when a particular item appeared in a draft, so as to locate the WG discussion of that item. Ain't broken, don't fix. [2]
Pseudo-hiding old I-Ds by breaking URLs such as
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-06 or
https://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-06 would be pointless vandalism.
Brian (grumpily)
[1] Here's what a draft I wrote in 1994, two years before RFC2026, says:
"Expires 26 September 1994
...
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
``working draft'' or ``work in progress.''"
That was of course generated by an nroff template.
[2] If you want to fix something, fix RFC2026 to match reality.
