Subject: Re: Working documents repository

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:02:44 -0700

*> 
  *> Is it possible the IETF will keep a repository
  *> of expired working documents? or is it a non
  *> affordable cost?
  *> 
  *> 

Alessio,

If you start an (official) repository for expired Internet Drafts, they
aren't expired any more (!), and you have created a new archival
document series in parallel to RFCs.  The Internet technical community
has a 15-year old consensus that this would generally be a bad idea.
[Like most other IETF/Internet ideas, this one resulted from actual
experience; at one point there was a separate document series called
the IENs (Internet Experiment Notes) in parallel with RFCs, and the
result was considerable confusion.]

  *> I just note that in order to prevent the loss
  *> of the "Two bits differentiated services architecture"
  *> the authors submitted it as a non std track RFC.
  *> 

This is exactly the right thing to do.  Working documents that contain
useful information should be published as Informational RFCs.  Or, if
their importance lies more in their style than their content, perhaps
you should consider submitting them to CCR or IEEE Networks or ...

Bob Braden

  *> Alessio
  *> 
  *> PS  there was an article about working documents
  *> getting lost on an issue of IEEE Networks, 
  *> and I share the concerns of its author.
  *>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:23:51 -0400

The IETF already archives other records of progress, such as the IETF
proceedings (slides), email to working group lists and working group
meetings, even though almost all of these are no longer current by the
time the RFC is published. It seems that as long as expired I-Ds are
treated just like working group minutes or emails, reflecting a state of
mind of the authors at a certain point, they can be moderately useful.
(The working group minutes or mailing list also don't make a whole lot
of sense without access to the I-D being discussed at the time.)

One of the things that has made access to old I-Ds more of an issue is
that many papers now cite, as work in progress, Internet drafts.
Diligent authors don't have a choice - in most cases, the technical
material is not yet available as an RFC or as a paper, so to give proper
credit or provide context, they have to cite an I-D, which may no longer
be available by the time the paper is published or read.

Having a non-IETF organization provide this access underscores their
unofficial nature, as does the permanent front matter and the date on
the I-D.

Henning
-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs