Subject: Re: Working documents repository

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:51:08 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>

> > I did not mean to imply that the IESG would check any credentials.  The
> > idea was to make the old I-D's available to anyone who really wanted to
> > see them, but without publishing them,
>
> You know, I rather think I see a logical contradiction here.

There is no contradiction between the notion of documents that can be
obtained with some hassle, and other documents that are published.  It is
impossible to make expired I-D's unavailable, but that does not mean
they must be published forever.

There is no more contradiction between the archives that major newspapers
maintain, and the fact that the contents of those archives are not
published.  It would be harmful for newspapers to continue to publish
everything forever (not least to for-profit newspapers themselves).  Still,
everyone agrees that limited access to newspaper archives is valuable.

The IETF is no more or less than a volunteer, non-profit publisher, a
"newspaper" of standards.

It was suggested that some expired I-D's have value to a few people, and
that no one can predict which I-D's or which people.  Everyone agrees with
that.  It is also generally agreed by people who have been around the IETF
for a while that continuing to publish all expired I-D's forever would
cause between a little and a lot of harm.  The only issue is whether and
how the value of helping those few people find their valued expired I-D's
can or should be balanced against the harm, and how great is the harm.

> > It would not matter if you required every reader of every I-D to repeat
> > such a disclaimer in their own words before giving them the rest of the
> > text.  It would still have no effect in the real world, and few significant
> > effects in unreal worlds such as the trade rags and courts.
>
> You have no objection to the disclaimer proposal, then, and you admit
> to the marginal benefit of the proposal.

I see no marginal benefit in your suggested boilerplate, but I do see
minor harm from the inevitable bureaucratic friction that would come with
an ineffectual change to text no one reads.  I am not competent to predict
the nature of the effects (if any) of your boilerplate in the unreal worlds
of the courts and trade rags, and I don't think you are either.

It seems you want to twist my words into an absolute position for or
against publishing I-D's forever (I can't tell which), and then use the
silliness of that absolute position (whichever it is) to support a change
in boilerplate.  Please don't.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:24:52 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Vernon Schryver wrote:

> obtained with some hassle, and other documents that are published.  

There is, for a standards body. It's analogous to a treasury
attempting to print counterfeit notes; everyone will believe the
money is real, because it has come from the treasury.

drafts go in to the IETF. They don't come out.

> It is

Your analogy with the newspapers goes too far.

An internet draft is analogous to a spiked story that was quashed
before printing (for legal/factual/editorial/other reasons), but that
the paid-nothing-much journalists know about anyway because they
happened to be in the newsroom (mailing-list) when it was written,
researched and discussed. But if the journalists think they really do
have a compelling story, they can go back and work on it a bit more
and strengthen it, then have the opportunity to wave it under the
editors' noses again more convincingly.

You can't get access to such spiked stories from newspaper archives,
for good reason; it's the 'be conservative in what you send' principle
in action. It's quality control.

> in boilerplate.

You appear to lack faith in human nature.

L.

tv: ? not video: ? 655 words of IPR legalese for that?

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>