[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
tme at americafree.tv
Fri Feb 11 17:09:55 PST 2011
On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 3:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> I can't speak for others, but my view is that drafts SHOULD (or even
>>> MUST) disappear, excepting for legal precedence.
>> Even if that were a good idea, how do you propose to do it? There are
>> copies of them all over the Internet. Trashing one archive, even the
>> largest archive, won't make them go away.
> It's easy enough for the ISOC to take them down. IMO, the boilerplate should have included:
> - this doc will be removed from the drafts directory upon expiration
> - the copyright for this doc allows the ISOC to archive it for legal reasons only, and otherwise reverts all rights to the author upon expiration
I don't think this would work well.
A group of people write an I-D, it goes through the process some, and then is allowed to expire. It had, let's say, 7 authors from
5 companies. At some time while after its expiration, someone else comes along and wants to revive this work. How will they be able to do that ? The original text has now reverted to the various authors (or their companies, or their estates, or their ex-wives), and the IETF no longer has rights to it. This would not be a good situation to be in.
> Anyone who puts up an "archive" of the drafts at that point is in copyright violation, and the authors can go after them. (I've done so for some archives for old IDs of mine, e.g.) That *includes* archives.
> IMO, that was the original intent of the I-Ds, and that aspect should be preserved.
>> Personally, if I learned that the IETF did something silly like try to
>> make it hard to find old drafts, I would adjust my current scripts
>> that rsync the I-D directory so that they never delete anything. I
>> doubt I would be the only one.
> Sure - keeping copies for personal use is generally protected/acceptable, but posting them for others is not, and there are legal recourses available.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest