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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Feb 14 10:14:43 PST 2011



On 2/13/2011 10:36 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> But in a day and age where everybody can put up a Web server and host a
> few gigabytes of I-Ds, the actual removal from the original archive just
> doesn't make any sense anymore.

That may be true NOW.

However:

1) that doesn't change the issue that not all I-Ds are in the same boat; 
as others have pointed out, many older ones predate the Web, and even 
those after that point are not always available now.

As a result, assertions about I-Ds need to keep that in mind. I-D 
citations should, IMO, either cite for credit only, or the author should 
make arrangements (with the I-D author) to make publish the I-D in an 
archival way.

2) Even if I agree with your claim above (that removal makes no sense), 
then let's stop the pretense and remove the "expires" terminology.

That's why I think that if you want to declare new I-Ds non-ephemeral, 
then you really need to talk about creating a new series with a new name 
and using that instead.

However, as per (1), even that won't help the rules for I-D citations as 
a whole.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list