[rfc-i] RFC citations committee I-D issued
ole at cisco.com
Fri Feb 11 21:23:57 PST 2011
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 J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
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.
> 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
More information about the rfc-interest