When I read the original IESG statement, I thought it sloppily worded, since it did not use the same terminology as in http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt which has been cited below.
I then wondered if the sloppy, as I saw it, wording might reflect less than precise thinking in the semantics, and I think that the subsequent posts have born that out. There are a lot of not-so-corner cases that need considering. For me, the 'public I-D archive', as the statement calls it, is of great value; some I-Ds keep doing U-turns and I need to go back and see what has been there before. Also, I may want to incorporate some material from a years old I-D that never got adopted. And so on. So I believe that everything should stay in that archive unless there is a very good reason for it not to; court order but not that alone I would add either or both of IESG vote (as for the approval of an I-D, DISCUSS, ABSTAIN etc) and IETF Consensus. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org> To: "Joe Touch" <to...@isi.edu> Cc: "IETF" <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:13 AM Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from theIETF Web Site > >>> I think it means "no longer current for the purposes of work and > >>> discussion." > > > > Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines > > (written by the IESG): > > > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt > > > > 8. Expiring > > > > An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days from the date that it > > is posted on the IETF Web site (<http://www.ietf.org/id-info/>) > > unless it is replaced by an updated version (in which case the clock > > will start all over again for the new version, and the old version > > will be removed from the I-D repository), or unless it is under > > official review by the IESG (i.e., a request to publish it as an RFC > > has been submitted)... > > > > I.e., this is not a matter of "interpretation". > > 'tis, apparently, because you are still interpreting it differently to how I am. > > There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document > will not be available *in the archive*. It says that it will be > removed *from the repository*, which it is... and the text you cite > later goes on to talk about the tombstone file that replaced it in the > repository, which we can easily see when we go to the datatracker > entry for an expired I-D. > > And then the statement you cite further goes on to say this: > > An expired I-D may be unexpired when necessary to further the work of > the IETF, including IETF liaison with other standards bodies. Such > action will be taken by request of an IESG member, a chair of the > working group associated with the I-D, or one of the document > authors. > > That *clearly* implies that it's not *gone*, else how could it be > unexpired when necessary, by anyone's request? > > I'll also note, Joe, that you are the *only* one arguing this point. > Does anyone agree with Joe? If not, it seems fair to say that it > looks like you're well in the rough here. > > Barry >
