>>>>> "William" == William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
William> John C Klensin wrote:
>> Then these need the "bad" designation, not just the "not really
>> interesting any more" one. And that, presumably, requires a
>> "1828/1829 considered harmful" document, or at least a
>> paragraph and a place to put it.
>>
>>
William> Well, gosh and golly gee, I wrote an "ISAKMP considered
William> harmful" about 6 years ago, and the IESG -- for the first
William> time in its history -- ordered it removed from the
William> internet-drafts repository (saying the IETF wouldn't
William> publish anything critical of the IETF process).
I wasn't following things closely enough at the time to have an
opinion on what happened then. However I do have an opinion on the
current process.
Things change and sometimes improve. I'd like to think the IETF and
the security area in particular are more open to criticism and to the
realization that we may be wrong. I believe I have some evidence for
this belief.
There might be some reasons why it would be appropriate to remove a
document from the ID repository--most of the ons I can think of have
to do with copyright issues--but I don't think a document being
critical of the IETF, its processes or technology would be such a
justification today.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf