--On Saturday, December 2, 2017 09:44 -0500 John R Levine
<johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> That does not need to be paper but, in addition to the
>> considerations Phillip mentions, I think we need to be
>> concerned about bit rot and issues of, not only difficulties
>> recovering bits from media but easily interpreting the bits
>> once received.
>
> The RSE recently made an arrangement with the Computer History
> Museum to archive RFCs in a way that is intended to be stable
> over the long term.
>
> I expect that we could easily add a one-sentence addendum to
> that agreement to include the IETF J and anything else we
> might want to keep in the long term, such as the meeting
> minutes and (if they still exist) proceedings.
Yes, although handling that as an "addition" would, IMO, require
very clearly sorting out the IETF-ISOC relationship, including
some "who is in charge" issues. Especially for publications,
those issues would include some of the ownership and
responsibility ones that we thought we had sorted out with the
IETF Trust setup and agreements.
Not only IANAL, but I suspect that for other reasons as well, it
would be lots better (and less time-consuming) to deal with
these things on a "one publisher/ copyright owner, one
agreement" basis. If the Computer History Museum folks were
willing, that would not prevent extending the existing
arrangement to include minutes, etc. because the IETF Trust has
its hooks into them too, but ISOC publications would seem to be
crossing some line. On the other hand, if ISOC were to make an
agreement with someone that included not just the IETF Journal
but all of the educational materials, policy documents, exchange
point discussions, etc., I'd think that would be a service to
the community and its history.
john