Sorry folks ... this is definitely a distinctly separate thread from The Report. :) Carl > Folks, > > I'm not sure whether this puts me in agreement with Paul > Hoffman's "re-flogging" comment or not, but The Report was > presented to the community as not interacting with the Standards > Process at all. Well, the issues about how to handle expired > I-Ds, whether or not they expire, etc., etc., are definitely > connected with the Standards Process. So we either need to > redefine what the report, and discussions about the report, are > about, or this discussion needs to be taken into a distinctly > separate thread. > > Just my opinion, of course. > john > > > --On Saturday, 11 September, 2004 13:48 -0700 Carl Malamud > <carl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ole - > > > > I agree that the IETF has a special responsibility to properly > > present the archive ... we can't simply lay a big ftp > > directory out there and make no efforts to show how a > > particular file fits in context. > > > > On the other hand, ietf.org could certainly beg/borrow/steal > > some of the work being done in places like potaroo.net and > > watersprings.org. Some things that could be done include: > > > > 1. Add some clear text that explains the role of the i-d > > historical repository > > > > 2. Link to previous and future versions of a draft (including > > any resulting RFC) > > > > 3. Link to any relevant mailing list discussions > > > > 4. Find related drafts or place the draft in the context of a > > working group > > > > 5. Add a very clear indication that the particular document in > > question is "Expired" > > > > As to citing work-in-progress instead of the final standard, > > well, hmmm ... if we don't have our own repository, there > > isn't much we can do. On the other hand, if a > > customer/reader/journalist were able to go to ietf.org and > > pull up the document in question, perhaps it could be really > > clear what the status is? If we want to make clear that a > > document is expired, it is much better to say so rather than > > pretend it doesn't exist. > > > > Regards, > > > > Carl > > > >> > >> - Vendors are "stupid" and will claim compliance with a > >> work-in-progress document instead of a final standard. This > >> is "very bad" > >> > >> - Drafts often change along the way (including being > >> completely discarded as "bad ideas") and we should discard > >> such snapshots in case someone gets the wrong idea from > >> reading one. > >> > >> Needless to say, I don't really buy these arguments. As > >> someone who publishes articles where the only existing > >> reference might be an ID at the time of writing, I believe > >> there are better mechanisms we could use (as we do with RFCs > >> and the "Obsoletes/Obsoleted by" tags). > >> > >> Ole > >> > >> > >> > >> Ole J. Jacobsen > >> Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal > >> Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems > >> Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 > >> E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf