Keeping I-D's around forever is incredibly important form a historical, technical, and legal perspective. They people understand how we work, think, and develop protocols (history). They help people what was tried and did or did not succeed (technology). And they provide a record of the state of the art at a particular point in time (legal).
-- Sent from a mobile device. Sorry for typos or weird auto-correct. Thank IETF LEMONADE for mobile email! See <http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/> On Sep 8, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Joe, > > On 08/09/2012 04:58, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... >>> And I think those are very different things. The fact that expired drafts >>> used to not be available for public viewing on the IETF site does not, by >>> itself, mean that that was or is the intent of expiration. >> >> That is exact what it meant. Or are you claiming that it was a coincidence >> that this entire time that derafts were removed in sync with that expiry? > > It may be what some people thought it meant, or wished it meant. > > And yes, it was intentional that you wouldn't find them in the *active* > drafts directory after expiry. > > The factual reality is that I-D's have always been more or less perpetual, > given that anonymous FTP has existed longer than any I-D. Admittedly the > record is spotty for drafts earlier that about 1995, when HTTP became a > major factor (but I suspect you could find them with gopher etc before HTTP). > The difference today is that we are sort-of admitting officially that > obsolete drafts can be found, and that this is useful. > > The word "expired" is perhaps not ideal; "obsolete" or "out of date" would > perhaps be more precise, but it's probably too late to change it now. > > Brian
