Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 08:43 07-09-2012, Joe Touch wrote:
IMO, the "expires" indication on an ID indicates the expiration of the ability of the ISOC to publish the draft.

This raises the question of what "expires" means.

So IMO the ISOC is then violating the terms of submission of a doc if it posts it publicly in perpetuity.

An I-D made available through ietf.org has:

  "Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved."

If IDs are published forever, ***WHY BOTHER WITH RFCS***?

The I-D mentions that:

  "Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time."

The above question comes to mind. The IETF could spare itself the expense of a RFC Editor to process IETF Stream documents. That's approximately US $933,000 a year.

At 03:35 07-09-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
Sorry, but this is largely a problem of our own making.  For
years, our position was that I=Ds expired after six months and,
when they expired, they disappeared from any public repository
for which the IETF had direct responsibility.  If others wanted
to capture and keep copies forever, that just wasn't our
problem.  Indeed, it might be claimed that it violated our

Yes.

If I am not mistaken, the I-D archive referred to in the draft statement belongs to the IETF Trust. Does the IETF Trust have a policy about the "DMCA" which has been mentioned in this thread? On an unrelated note, It is strange that the IETF Trust hasn't had a meeting since March.

Regards,
-sm


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]