Melinda Shore wrote:
On Friday, September 10, 2004, at 09:30 AM, scott bradner wrote:
but, to me, its quite silly to pretend that IDs actually disapear from the net just because teh IETF takes it off of our web site
I don't think anybody's pretending that, but if there's an agreement between the IETF and people who submit ids that the documents are going to be disappeared from the IETF archive in six months, I think it's kind of a problem to change that agreement retroactively.
As do I; this is a severely beaten horse.
I also don't mind if new IDs have an opt-in (e.g., via one of a proscribed set of phrases in a BCP), but there needs to be a way for _any_ ID (even WG IDs) to be ephemeral by design. I would, BTW, prefer an opt-in than an opt-out.
Just because others illegally republish them doesn't mean it's appropriate to give up on this issue.
On the other hand, I'd hate to see indecision about what to do about old ids seep into indecision about what to do about new ids going forward. It seems to me that a new policy saying that any ids submitted in the future will be archived by the IETF unless the authors object is far better than allowing the current situation to continue. That wouldn't prevent us from going back and revisiting the problem of old drafts at some future time, either.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through ietf_censored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which is a sublist of ietf@xxxxxxxxx Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator (ietf_admin@xxxxxxxx).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf