[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts
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
> 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
> 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.
More information about the rfc-interest