On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:39:35 -0500
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > How does adding a downref to a dead document add more
> > integrity to the RFC process?
>
> Independent of the merits in this particular case, it provides
> history and context. We have learned, or should have learned,
> two things over and over again:
>
> (1) Failure to provide context and a track through
> rejected and alternative suggestions results in "new"
> proposals to try the same things again, usually from
> people who had no idea about the prior work.
>
> (2) Providing good documentation that recognizes the
> origins of an idea and its date, even if there were some
> changes from the original version, can be very helpful
> in defending our work against patent vultures who try to
> make filings on work that the IETF has had under
> development for some time. Personally, I've reached the
> point that I would favor having most protocol
> specification RFCs contain a sentence of the form of
> "The work described here derives from a series of
> earlier drafts, including [ref, ref, ref] the first of
> which was circulated in 1968."
>
> In addition, in the general case, it can be argued that
> referencing prior work, even "dead drafts" is _required_ by the
> obligation to recognize and acknowledge the involvement of
> contributors of either ideas or text.
>
Strong second.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
