Subject: Re: Working documents repository

From: "Nyk Cowham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:19:06 -0400

>>> Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]> 08/16/99 01:23PM >>>
>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meetings, even though almost all of these are no longer current by the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.)

Perhaps the solution would be to create a new category of document; an expired or historic document class.  When an I-D is no longer current it is reclassified as an historic document that is stored in a separate historic archive.

On reclassification is would have a Historic Document header and footer file attached stating that the document exists for historic review purposes and represents no current information.  The header would also note the document's expiry date or the date that it was reclassified as historic.

>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.

Yes, and this would be reinforced by reclassifying the document, attaching headers and expiry dates.  Using the specific terminology 'historic document' would also reinforce the 'unofficial' nature of the documents.

Nyk Cowham.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:43:34 -0700

At 09:19 AM 8/17/99 , Nyk Cowham wrote:
>Perhaps the solution would be to create a new category of document; an 
>expired or historic document class.  When an I-D is no longer current it 
>is reclassified as an historic document that is stored in a separate 
>historic archive.

helping people to realize that an Internet Draft is no longer on the table 
seems like a good idea.

As it is moved to an archive, perhaps renaming it from draft-* to expired-* 
will provide that assistance.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Martin J. Duerst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:46:12 +0900

> will provide that assistance.

Yes, exactly.

Moving something from http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xxxx-yyyy.txt
to e.g. http://www.ietf.org/expired-internet-drafts/1999/expired-xxxx-yyyy.txt.

Please don't forget to put in a year, to be able to handle the volume.

Regarding bad ideas comming up from old drafts: The W3C has a very strong
'archive everything' policy, and it definitely helps to fight old bad
ideas rather than making it more difficult.

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:[email-masked]   http://www.w3.org

---

From: "Martin J. Duerst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:46:12 +0900

Yes, exactly.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:38:19 +0100 (BST)

> ideas rather than making it more difficult.

The W3C has closed membership, where corporations are encouraged to
make new and different corporate mistakes and do not wish to throw
good money after bad, and the value of corporate membership must be
justified by showing work that was done. The W3C is effectively a
service industry which must demonstrate its track record and focus to
its paying members.

The comparison with the IETF, where membership is open even to crazies
who don't have money, and the number of individual draft submissions
at any one time is somewhere around a thousand, is entirely moot.

L.

> #-#-#  mailto:[email-masked]   http://www.w3.org

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

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:38:19 +0100 (BST)

L.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:49:32 -0700

Lloyd,

Your note confused the heck out of me:

At 07:38 AM 8/20/99 , Lloyd Wood wrote:
>...
>...

It sounds like you are saying that the W3C has to show productivity, so it 
keeps an archive.

But the IETF does not have to prove itself, so it should NOT keep an archive?

In any event...

Resolving my misunderstanding doesn't really matter, since the reasons for 
keeping old I-Ds and making them easy to access and search has been listed 
and reviewed multiple times.  They have nothing to do with credibility or 
productivity proof or politics.

They have to do with helping.

Helping newcomers, helping current discussions, helping researchers and (oh 
dear) even helping lawyers -- or, rather of course, helping some legal 
processes.

The insistence at protecting the community against misinterpreting the 
status of expired drafts, by making them unavailable,  is parental, 
Draconian, and singularly counter-productive given the benefits that have 
been listed.

Next we will make Historic RFCs unavailable and even purge them from the 
list of RFCs.

Instead of non-persons we will invent non-documents.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:49:32 -0700

Lloyd,

In any event...

d/

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 22:15:30 -0400

Dave Crocker wrote:
.  .  . 
> Instead of non-persons we will invent non-documents.

What he said.

My dad at one point in his career headed up the publishing department of
a good sized U.S. corporation. Amongst the duties of his department (in
between preparing product packaging, documentation, etc) was the
preparation of the company's annual report.

I remember him coming home one day and staring at the wall for a while,
obviously upset. When he finally got around to explaining why, he told
us that for this year's report, the powers-that-be wanted some photos
from a company function, but were unhappy to find out that the only
photo showing a particular set of officers was one taken at a table with
a particular discredited, now-former employee. My dad was instructed (in
this pre-digital age) to air-brush the offending person out of the
photo, rewriting the history of the event. I remember his showing me the
final report, with the chair air-brushed in, the person in the
background who'd received a new elbow, etc.

Folks, we simply can't rewrite history in this way (or banish it) and
retain credibility. We can rewrite it, but we can't do it and retain
credibility.

Now, having said that, if the "powers-that-be" at the IETF want to bury
their collective heads in the sand and deny history, then so be it. Just
don't kid yourselves in this post-digitl world that you can declare that
"Drafts expire" and expect them to disappear from the net. Heck, your
postings to alt.folklore.urban have a greater lifespan than that.

Now, if the IETF refuses to provide such ancilliary support services,
okay. No biggie. Either others will do so, or (judging from the way the
proponents of this particular proposal are being raked over the coals)
we're going to see some Darwinian selection and the proposals will go
elsewhere. And many of the people on this list will applaud. And a few
will not be comfortable with this entire episode...

				- peterd

---

From: Peter Deutsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 22:15:30 -0400

Dave Crocker wrote:
.  .  . 

What he said.

				- peterd