Subject: Re: Working documents repository

From: "Tim Kehres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 22:47:01 +0800

Bob,

>  *> Next we will make Historic RFCs unavailable and even purge them from
the
>  *> list of RFCs.
>
>Dave,
>
>This is a red herring (as you well know).  RFCs are by definition an
>archival series.  They have lasted almost 30 years, and I hope the
>publication of new RFCs will outlast me.

Yes of course they are.  I happen however to agree with Dave's analogy
above, and believe that the older ID's can be useful.

>With respect to the main argument: an archival series requires a
>carefully conceived set of rules and procedures, and it requires some
>effort.  If you start retaining and cataloging old Internet Drafts, you
>are on a slippery slope towards creating a second archival series.  I
>believe, as Jon believed, that this would be a mistake.

I think that Dave had it pretty much right when he suggested that a proper
labeling of the archive should solve this problem.  Everyone (for the most
part) seems to understand the difference between RFC's with different
status, and these are all catalogued together.  If the expired ID's are kept
separate, and it is well labeled that this is a historical archive of work
no longer in progress, I think it's pretty much a streach to think that the
same people that can deal with the RFC differences in status won't be able
to deal with a single catalog which is entirely of historical status.

An archive such as this, together with archives of the appropriate WG
discussion list(s) could serve as a valuable tool for anyone researching why
design decisions were made or not made.   This IMHO can only help future
work in this area.   Instead of revisiting an idea that has already been
hashed several times before, references can be made to the work already
carried out.

>This is not, and has never been, an easy issue.  There are strong
>consequences to any choice, and some wisdom is required.  And contrary
>to some opinions that have recently been expressed in this discussion,
>I would say that the precedence of experience and 30 years of success
>do deserve some weight in this consideration.

If I'm not mistaken, several of the people that are arguing for the archives
have been part of this success story for much of this period of time.  As
such, I don't understand the point you are trying to make with the above
argument.

Best Regards,

Tim Kehres
International Messaging Associates
http://www.ima.com

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:14:41 +0100 (BST)

> believe, as Jon believed, that this would be a mistake.

You mean a THIRD archival series. We already have STD and RFC.

L.

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

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:14:41 +0100 (BST)

L.