On 1/28/2016 11:50 AM, Theodore V Faber wrote: >>> It seems to me that I-Ds are an interesting case. They are a series of >>> >> documents whose stated purpose is to be ephemeral in order to promote >>> >> exchange of half-formed ideas. Preserving them for the ages seems to >>> >> undermine that intent. >> > >> >The confusion on this is mixing 'status' with 'availability'. The fact >> >that a document is no longer considered active does not mean that it >> >should become inaccessible. >> > >> >And indeed, that's the reason I-Ds remain available after the time out. > Yeah, and I seem to recall some kind of rathole/vortex around what the > original intent of I-Ds was vs. what they are today. I’ll stipulate the > position above rather than head anywhere near that. IMO the confusion lies with the concept of "ephemeral" vs. "but I *really* want it, even though I should have no right to it", which led to a redefinition of the concept of "ephemeral" as it applies to IDs. See below... >> >The same point should apply to all public IETF materials, IMO. >> > >> >The materials are likely to become useful to future researchers. But we >> >cannot expect current researchers to do the archival work now, in >> >anticipation of those needs. The responsibility for helping those folk >> >in the future lies with the IETF community itself, now. > > Future networking researchers or future historians? Or future litigation? The redefinition of IDs in particular was driven by a concern that these documents might be particularly useful in disproving patent claims. I still firmly believe it remains a disservice to the community to have changed the concept of ID expiration for the primary benefit of lawyers. Joe