[rfc-i] citing historic internet drafts

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Oct 15 07:44:31 PDT 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

Originally, once IDs expired, it was removed completely. There has been
varying interpretations of whether it is reasonable to archive expired
IDs, and there have been various changes to the rights of the ISOC to
archive them over the years. There are IDs that predate those changes,
however.

>> 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?

The term is one associated with Internet Drafts; it doesn't necessarily
have the meaning it once intended (e.g., IDs are more RFCs, and RFCs are
more 'done'). Note that I used it in caps "Work in Progress", which
intends that it is a term with a special meaning.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkj2Ac8ACgkQE5f5cImnZrtBQwCcDGx+LRg0j4KiGiiYrwvOY64t
Z4kAniA5nby/kvl2B+9MWVHkFlxVwLBQ
=8TwB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list