[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Oct 15 06:01:50 PDT 2008


Joe Touch wrote:
> Some expired IDs don't have URLs - or shouldn't. The were written before
> the current policy of archiving past IDs.

As far as I can tell, there really isn't a new policy (or is it?). 
tools.ietf.org serves expired IDs, and most people love the ability to 
get them from there (I guess). But has there ever been a *decision* to 
do this?

> IMO, these should be listed as "Work in Progress (expired)" or somesuch.

"Work in progress" is simply misleading if everybody knows that it is 
not work in progress. What's the point in claiming it when it is just 
incorrect?

>  They are appropriate for giving credit where due, but not for
> information required to understand the document, IMO.

I was talking about cases where the expired drafts are interesting for 
historic reasons, such as citing requirements documents. Cases like 
these are informative, thus reading these documents is *not* required to 
understand the document.

BR, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list