Eric, you specified exactly the right answer: > In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's official > I-D page, enter a draft name, and get a prominent pointer to > the most recent version (even if it is now an RFC or a > draft with a different name), along with a less prominent > pointer to the thing they actually asked for. This is very feasible and should be done. Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Eric Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:49 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: archives (was The other parts of the report.... > > > > I've never thought that the IETF was OBLIGATED to "hide" > old I-Ds; that seems a rather far-fetched interpretation of > anything in RFC 2026. > > However, I think there is a real practical problem in > making the old i-d's > be too readily available. I frequently get messages > asking me questions > like "where is draft-rosen-something-or-other-04.txt, I > can't find it" to which the answer is one of the following: > > a. you want draft-rosen-something-or-other-23.txt, or > > b. you want draft-ietf-somewg-something-or-other-05.txt, or > > c. you want RFC 12345. > > What's happened is that they have found some email which > references a long outdated draft, and have no clue how to > get to the most up-to-date version, which is what they really > want to see. > > If we make it too easy to access the old drafts, a lot of > people will just get the old drafts instead of being forced > to look for the more recent work. > > Sure, people who really want to see the old drafts should > be able to get them, but people who really want to see > the most up-to-date versions shouldn't get the old drafts > just because they only know an old draft name. > > In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's official > I-D page, enter a draft name, and get a prominent pointer to > the most recent version (even if it is now an RFC or a > draft with a different name), along with a less prominent > pointer to the thing they actually asked for. > > If that can't be done, it might be better to keep the > expired drafts > "officially hidden". Not for the reasons being given > by our more > academically inclined colleagues, but for the practical > reasons described above. Sure, the expired drafts might be > obtainable via Google, but getting something from Google is > a bit different than getting it via the IETF's official web page. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf