[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
touch at isi.edu
Fri Feb 11 18:15:27 PST 2011
On 2/11/2011 5:48 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 5:18 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> I don't think the I-D process is designed to ensure the right of
>> others to
>> revive old work.
> Joe, I am reasonably certain that you are expressing views held by a
> measurable constituency in the IETF.
> What I am having difficulty with is understanding how such an
> entrenched, counter-productive position is at all helpful for the IETF.
I think you may underestimate the value of I-Ds being deliberately
ephemeral, as encouraging early dissemination of rough ideas.
Nobody expects email archives to persist forever, or to cite them as
persistent. Nobody bemoans the "rights" of the community to revive ideas
expressed in email.
IMO, I-Ds are just a larger format of a form of expression like e-mail.
Make them archival and persistent, and you risk squelching the very
reason they are NOT RFCs; the ability to cast an idea out *without* it
"haunting" the author forever.
Yes, I think that property is a valuable, if not *defining* property of
an I-D, and yes, I think *it* is worth preserving.
Take that away, and let's just call everything an RFC and move on.
More information about the rfc-interest