[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued

[Ole Jacobsen]

I really don't understand why we think it is useful or even possible 
to "un-publish" documents even if I do see the value of having them
expire as part of our standardization process. 

I quite often publish articles in IPJ where an I-D is the *only* 
available reference material, after all I do claim to cover "emerging 
technologies". IPJ is designed to be archived, physically, in 
binders (yeah, I know, US paper size, but...) So why then, several 
years later, should a reader not be allowed or be able to locate such
reference material even if it (and the article in question) was just a
"snapshot in time"?  

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole at cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj



On Fri, 12 Feb 2011, John R Levine wrote:

> > Sure - keeping copies for personal use is generally protected/acceptable,
> > but posting them for others is not, and there are legal recourses available.
> 
> Rather than explain all the reasons why this is wrong, I'll just refer people
> to the license in the TLP which is incorporated by reference in the I-D
> boilerplate and say that I don't think it's productive for us nerds to play
> Junior Intellectual Property Lawyer.
> 
> In any event, the net is full of copies of old I-D's, they're not going away
> even if a few people take down a few copies due to fatuous legal threats, nor
> are people going to stop referring to them.  We can come up with a consistent
> reference style, or we can play King Canute.  I know what I'd do.
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>