Subject: Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:00:00 -0600 (MDT)

>                                        ... Are they allowed to republish w/o
> my consent?  

Who is talking about "republishing"?

If a book publisher decides to donate its unsold stock to a library instead
of shredding it, is that "republishing"?

Can a book or magazine publisher decide to run the same plates some more
with the original copyright?  Would that be "republishing"?
(Note that I'm not talking about compiling and printing a new "greatest
hits" or "dumbest ideas" book.)

As I asked before, what about the cases when I-D's were not deleted from
venera.isi.edu:internet-drafts 15,552,000 seconds after they were
installed?  Does anyone really think that jilted authors have legitimate
grievences for those oversights?  What about 20 Mseconds?  Or 200M?

Presumably the IETF, IESG, or ISI have backup tapes for the expired I-D's.
When is restoring a backup tape "republishing"?  I can think of cases when
it would be, and other cases when it surely would not be.  Restoring all
of the files that have ever been in ftp.isi.edu:internet-drafts does not
sound like a clear case of "replubishing."

Those who are complaining about "republishing" because they were jilted
by the IETF might be wise to reconsider their positions in light of what
they would say about Acme Widgets if Acme does exactly the same with their 
forthtcoming Avian Carriers technology.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "Kathy Wisenbaker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:46:53 -0500

All,

Please take Vivek Kapil off of your mailing list. He keeps receiving a large
amount of e-mails that he can no longer keep up with.

Thank,

Kathy Wisenbaker
IDC/ASP Strategic Business Consulting
> *Phone : (972) 684-8232, ESN 444-8232
> *  Fax:      (972) 685-3866, ESN 445-3145
> *Email:   [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Manning [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 1:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts

% Bill Manning wrote:
% 	[..from boilerplate..]
% > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and
% > may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
% 
% 	[..comment...]
% > What constitutes "validity"?
% 
% I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG".
% 
% cheers,
% gja

	And if it becomes of "current interest to an IETF WG" after the
	six month window?  Or if it is of interest to a non IETF WG, e.g.
	a legally oriented person doing IPR work? Can the IETF make
	"non-valid" collections of drafts available for prior art searches
	as an IETF function, esp. given the language in the boilerplate?
	
--bill