On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:39:35 -0500 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > How does adding a downref to a dead document add more > > integrity to the RFC process? > > Independent of the merits in this particular case, it provides > history and context. We have learned, or should have learned, > two things over and over again: > > (1) Failure to provide context and a track through > rejected and alternative suggestions results in "new" > proposals to try the same things again, usually from > people who had no idea about the prior work. > > (2) Providing good documentation that recognizes the > origins of an idea and its date, even if there were some > changes from the original version, can be very helpful > in defending our work against patent vultures who try to > make filings on work that the IETF has had under > development for some time. Personally, I've reached the > point that I would favor having most protocol > specification RFCs contain a sentence of the form of > "The work described here derives from a series of > earlier drafts, including [ref, ref, ref] the first of > which was circulated in 1968." > > In addition, in the general case, it can be argued that > referencing prior work, even "dead drafts" is _required_ by the > obligation to recognize and acknowledge the involvement of > contributors of either ideas or text. > Strong second. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf