>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> writes:
Joe> On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
Joe> ...
>> Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a
>> good idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire
>> gracefully.
Joe> +1
Joe> Let's not forget there was a reason for expiration.
Joe> I'm OK with the archive being public so long as at least the
Joe> authors can remove an ID *without needing to provide a reason*.
Joe> Yes, removal from the IETF site will not expunge copies from
Joe> the entire Internet, but the IETF site should set the example
Joe> here, and respect the original intent of allowing an ID to
Joe> expire.
I find myself in agreement with Joe here.
I'm kind of horrified that this discussion is still going on.
If I write that super-offensive porn in the form of an i-d that Scott
warned about can we all find something else to mail about?:-)