Joe Touch wrote:
> >
> > There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document
> > will not be available *in the archive*.
>
> There's nothing that says it won't be available by Santa Claus delivery
> either. However, the document states how things will be made available,
> and how that will change upon expiration.
While the 6-month timer (or any earlier I-D update!!) will, in fact,
change how the *IETF* distributes and promotes a particular I-D (version),
there is actually *NO* limitation in what folks downloading I-Ds
with the URLs from the i-d-announce I-D Action: EMails do with
any of the I-Ds that they download.
When I startet mirroring I-Ds in 1995, I did so by processing the
I-D announce Emails, rather than mirroring the IETF ftp server,
because (a) I did want to retain old I-Ds of WG document that
I was actively participating in, and I had no desire to obtain
the tombstone files.
>
> Nobody is debating whether the IETF can/should have an archive. The
> question is whether that archive should be public - which effectively
> negates the concept of taking the doc out of the I-D repository.
>
> And I see you selectively omitted the rest of that paragraph:
>
> Such a request may be overridden; e.g., a chair of the
> working group associated with the I-D will be notified if an author
> requests unexpiration and may request that the action not occur.
> This request should be sent to internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx (using the
> suggested subject line "Resurrect I-D <filename>") and should come
> from an author, a working group chair, or an IESG member.
This describes how _one_ very specific IETF document repository
(of active I-Ds) is managed.
>
> I recognize the IETF might change this policy, but I want to be clear
> that I don't consider this is ambiguous to date.
I *never* understood this to be any kind of polic, but rather a
description of the current procedure, deliberatly chosen by the
secretariat and server admin how to process and make available
I-Ds for download.
Since 1995, the location&(favorite)protocol moved around a few times:
ftp://ds.internic.net/
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
http://www.ietf.org/id/
I never understood the submission of a successor I-D or creation
of a tombstone I-D by the secretariat to imply un-publication or
un-contribution of an earlier or expired I-D.
Personally, I consider the possibility to diff arbitrary RFCs and I-D
version from the past through the tools.ietf.org interface extremely useful.
Similar to being able to browse IETF mailing list archives.
Not being able to browse old IETF WG mailing list archives that have been
hosted by other organizations is sometimes a problem. (there are many
interesting discussions and information in the archives, many of
which are still quite relevant today).
>
> If the IETF wants to put all old IDs on a public site, I consider that
> equivalent to unexpiration, and the authors must be given the right to
> opt-out.
You're asking for an opt-out from "Note Well" here. I strongly object
to such a change of IETF policy.
Several I-Ds, and in particular abandoned/expired I-Ds were originally
cometing proposals, and only one or a few of them was/were selected to
become adopted/published as RFCs. That doesn't mean that the other
proposals were useless, flawed or not being actively discussed
on IETF mailing lists. Just the opposite. I-Ds are often regular
parts of WG mailing list discussions, they're just managed/distributed
in a fashion that differes from Mailing list archives.
-Martin