Hi Scott, folks, with due deference to Joe Touch & Bill Manning, whenever I have created/requested publication of an I-D, it never occurred to me that I was actually withdrawing the rights I had signed up to after six months (i.e., insisting on removal). That seems a novel reading of the boilerplate/2026. There were times people have had to refresh a draft before it disappeared (with precious few changes), just to keep them published. That always struck me as bonkers, and am roundly happy that/if expired drafts don't evaporate with the season. I can't be alone in this -- these docs may not be current, but having a trail of drafts NOT take up gigabytes on [some] people's hard drives is good. As for Scott's comments/efforts to have an expired-draft directory -- amen to that, for both reasons. (I hadn't realised that Steve had just about done this; good chap, who's sorely missed). It is VERY useful to be able to search through drafts to see how we got here, AND to see things that were explored and abandoned. It's also useful to be able to check when things were published relative to applications; having that information potentially go away was/is a nuisance. IMHO: If authors insist, OK -- the expired draft is toast (although it being replaced by a published note that it has been deleted would be good). Otherwise, why would/should the IESG decide to remove a document? ... which is a long way of saying: +1 all the best, Lawrence On 14 Sep 2012, at 16:21, Bradner, Scott wrote: > I don't think that the Note Well note has much to do with what Joe started talking about > > we have had this discussion before > > quite a few years ago (pre tools) I suggested moving "expired" IDs to an "expired IDs" directory > rather than removing them from the IETF public repository as well as posting all the old > expired IDs in the same directory (changing only the filename to prepend "expired-") > > seemed like a good idea to me & to many other people, for the reasons people find the tools ID archive > useful & the IESG at the time said to move ahead > > Steve Coya started the (long) process f pulling the old IDs from backup tapes > > as he was finishing that process a new IESG was seated and the new IESG was not as in > favor of the idea and wanted a fuller mailing list discussion (there had been a short > discussion when I proposed the idea) > > there were a few people (Joe was one) that felt that IDs were published under the rights implied > in rfc 2026, which said that IDs expired, and, thus, the IETF did to have the right to not remove them > (there fact that other repositories existed did not change the IETF's rights in their opinion - in at least > one case someone (I think Bill Manning) sent letters to some of those archives asking that their > ID be removed) > > with support from the then IETF lawyer, I suggested that there be a way for a ID author to > request that their ID be removed from the expired IDs directory but that idea did not carry the > day and the expired IDs directory idea died > > then, at some later point, the tools function showed up - I do not think I was still on the > IESG at that point so I do not know if the IESG discussed the question > > I think this is a very useful service (for history of how the technology evolved > and for prior art searches in patent cases) and think that pretending that anything > published on the Internet ever quite goes away is not realistic. > > Scott > > > > On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs. >