--On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 12:38 -0400 John Levine
<johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It appears that Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>> While agreeing with John's point, the document in question
>> was originally submitted as an internet draft - May 4, 1997
>> draft-rivest-sexp-00.txt
>
> That's the date on the draft but there is no evidence that it
> ever arrived at the IETF.
>
> I still think this is a problem that is easier for MIT and/or
> the Internet Archive to solve than for us.
I agree but...
As I understand it, Don Eastlake has reached an agreement with
Ron Rivest to resurrect the document, put himself (Don) on as
co-author, make whatever changes are needed to meet contemporary
standards, and move it through the I-D process. Unless Don
screws up in some major way (the odds of which I believe are
vanishingly small) that should make the 1997 version irrelevant.
I'd expect Don's new version would mention that it is an update
to a 1997 draft and identify any substantive changes (if he
doesn't want to --something else I consider thoroughly
unlikely-- we have IETF LC or discussions with the ISE to
convince him). At the point that document is published as an
RFC or even a contemporary I-D (IPR rules and all), the 1997
version should be of purely historical interest (if that). That
type of historical interest is exactly what the Internet Archive
is for (even if MIT --either CSAIL or Special Collections (aka
the Institute Archives) can't be persuaded to get the document
into a good place with a stable link).
On behalf of the SAADH (Society for Avoiding Abuse to Dead
Horses), can we stop kicking this one and move on?
john
