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

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

 



When I read the original IESG statement, I thought it sloppily worded,
since it did not use the same terminology as in
 http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
which has been cited below.

I then wondered if the sloppy, as I saw it, wording might reflect less
than precise thinking in the semantics, and I think that the subsequent
posts have born that out.  There are a lot of not-so-corner cases that
need considering.  For me, the 'public I-D archive', as the statement
calls it, is of great value; some I-Ds keep doing U-turns and I need to
go back and see what has been there before.  Also, I may want to
incorporate some material from a years old I-D that never got adopted.
And so on.

So I believe that everything should stay in that archive unless there is
a very good reason for it not to; court order but not that alone  I
would add either or both of IESG vote (as for the approval of an I-D,
DISCUSS, ABSTAIN etc) and IETF Consensus.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from
theIETF Web Site


> >>> I think it means "no longer current for the purposes of work and
> >>> discussion."
> >
> > Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID
Guidelines
> > (written by the IESG):
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
> >
> > 8.  Expiring
> >
> >    An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days from the date that
it
> >    is posted on the IETF Web site (<http://www.ietf.org/id-info/>)
> >    unless it is replaced by an updated version (in which case the
clock
> >    will start all over again for the new version, and the old
version
> >    will be removed from the I-D repository), or unless it is under
> >    official review by the IESG (i.e., a request to publish it as an
RFC
> >    has been submitted)...
> >
> > I.e., this is not a matter of "interpretation".
>
> 'tis, apparently, because you are still interpreting it differently to
how I am.
>
> There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document
> will not be available *in the archive*.  It says that it will be
> removed *from the repository*, which it is... and the text you cite
> later goes on to talk about the tombstone file that replaced it in the
> repository, which we can easily see when we go to the datatracker
> entry for an expired I-D.
>
> And then the statement you cite further goes on to say this:
>
>    An expired I-D may be unexpired when necessary to further the work
of
>    the IETF, including IETF liaison with other standards bodies.  Such
>    action will be taken by request of an IESG member, a chair of the
>    working group associated with the I-D, or one of the document
>    authors.
>
> That *clearly* implies that it's not *gone*, else how could it be
> unexpired when necessary, by anyone's request?
>
> I'll also note, Joe, that you are the *only* one arguing this point.
> Does anyone agree with Joe?  If not, it seems fair to say that it
> looks like you're well in the rough here.
>
> Barry
>




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