At 18:55 22/09/2000 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Do such RFCs actually exist ?
Do you have a specific example ? I don't know of any.
I have always heard that the RFC Editor will not publish
any document as an RFC if it tries to reference an Internet-Draft.
RFC 2095:
[KEYED-MD5]
I agree completely with the author's goals, but are we really going to do this?
Hint: how many people in the world have the three initials "abc"?
I'm not sure that per-carbon-based-lifeform URN spaces are going to scale a lot better
than networks or domain names with the same level of
Discussions about whether good I-Ds always become RFCs or
not misses the point. You wont stop marketing droids from
making overblown statements about the relative worth of
'publishing' an I-D you could make I-Ds last only
the week of an IETF meeting, and marketing droids will
gleefully
Pete Loshin wrote:
The last RFC I looked at, RFC 2917, has two (of four) references to
"work in progress". No, they don't reference specific I-Ds, but we all
know that "work in progress" is a code word for "some Internet-Draft"
and we all probably have no serious problem tracking down
PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material
submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal after 6 mos'?
I also share this concern.
Keith
Keith Moore wrote:
[..]
historically IETF has discouraged even external references to
I-Ds by removing I-Ds from the repository after six months.
Discouraged != Can Prevent, so again I wonder what we're
achieving in this thread.
if IETF starts providing a reliable archive of I-Ds,
PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material
submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal after 6 mos'?
Yes. More generally the presumption that RFC doesn't mean "Request for
Comments" and that the explicit withdrawal of the preliminary form has
been over-ridden by a
PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material
submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal after 6 mos'?
I also share this concern.
as do i, though i understand the ipr motivation.
randy
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if IETF starts providing a reliable archive of I-Ds, I-Ds will be
referenced more often in external documents
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) -
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:56:02 -0700
From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
[...]
PS - is no one else alarmed by the re-publishing of material
submitted under an explicit agreement for 'removal after 6 mos'?
I know _I_ have not been
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if IETF starts providing a reliable archive of I-Ds, I-Ds will be
referenced more often in external documents
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) -
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:31:36 EDT, "J. Noel Chiappa" said:
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) - i.e. you'd have
only a "search page" where you'd have to enter some data and press a button
to get an
Not all I-D carry the full ISOC copywrite. Indeed the ISOC copywrite
has not existed for that long. Some document creators do read the
boilerplate. Objecting to it can and has caused some friction within
the IETF community.
Joe Touch's concerns are real.
--bill
Hello All , Has everyone seen this not wondered where
the search functionality is ? I also see a lack of
port# - draft/rfc capabilities . I hope people other than
myself are finding this archive of limited use ?
Tia , JimL
On Mon, 25 Sep
At 06:33 PM 9/25/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
I suppose the risk here might be reduced a tiny bit if such an archive
didn't make old I-D's available directly (i.e. via a URL) - i.e. you'd
have
only a "search page" where you'd have to enter some data and press a
button
to get an I-D.
I just love this mythology that "expires in 6 months"
means expunged from all retrievable record in 6 months.
Practically speaking it only ever means "if it hasn't been
picked up by a WG and revised in 6 months it is no longer
of interest to the IETF". Expunging it from the IETF's
official I-D
I think we should be willing to admit that an Internet-Draft
often serves two distinct roles:
(1) As a formal part of the IETF document process.
(2) As an informal record of intellectual content.
Role 1 is obviously the primary purpose of an I-D; they are
created in the service
17 matches
Mail list logo
