Subject: Re: Topic drift Re: An Internet Draft as reference material

From: Greg Minshall <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:09:30 -0700

i think there are two issues.

one is that when I-Ds were created, there was some controversy, mainly 
revolving around the notion that we already had a forum for people putting out 
ideas (known as RFCs), and that the fact that the public concept of RFC was 
different from our intent, we should stick by our intent (and work on 
educating the public).  if i remember correctly, it was within this part of 
the discussion that we decided that I-Ds would be ephemeral documents.

if *we*, as an organization (or whatever we are) decide that I-Ds should no 
longer be ephemeral documents, then we probably pop right back up in the 
middle of the "should we have two archival document series" discussion again.  
(though frankly i'm not sure the energy is there for at least the "RFC is the 
one" side of the discussion.)

the second issue, as many have pointed out, is that there is no way to stop 
http://www.internetdraftsforever.com from springing up (hey, maybe it's 
already there!).  certainly, no one is (seriously) trying to prevent that from 
happening.

i think of the current (officially ephemeral) I-Ds as being like Usenet 
postings (remember those?).  people *do* cite them in articles occasionally, 
dejanews (or whatever) does hang on to them forever, you can (or you could, in 
the past at least) buy CDs full of them.  but, they don't have the "cachet" of 
an RFC.

i personally would vote for keeping the I-Ds "officially ephemeral", and if 
deja-id pops up to archive them, i'll probably occasionally poke around in 
there myself.

cheers,  Greg

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:11:10 -0700

Greg, it is so rare that I disagree, but I'm seeing a pattern now of
loss of institutional memory, and that scares me.  This especially holds
for bad ideas or transition documents.

So here's what I propose to address the matter:  

Convert the I-Ds to ps or pdf files (something hard to change) and stamp
them on each page from end to end with an bright red watermark, like
"Not a current IETF Document. For historical use only."  Allow search
ONLY on the original text, though, and require agreement that the
document will not be mentioned or referred to in any publication.  Don't
make a unique URL available (use post mode to generate dynamic HTML).

How's that?
--
Eliot Lear
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:13:12 -0400

> Convert the I-Ds to ps or pdf files (something hard to change)

funny thing is, ascii text seems like a much better archive format.
(presumably it's a lot easier to decode decades from now)

if you want to make the file difficult to change, sign it with PGP

Keith

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:19:03 -0400

> Convert the I-Ds to ps or pdf files (something hard to change) 

Postscript files are straightforward for a postscript hacker to
change.  I imagine the same is true for pdf files.

If you want to make the files hard to change, try a pgp signature.

					- Bill

---

From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:55:11 -0400

Why would someone like to preserve some thing that has been found to
be not worth publishing as an RFC? What is next? Click on XX for paper
published in Sept 2000 of Issue of IEEE Transactions on
Communications, and click on YY for papers evaluated and rejected for
Sept 2000 Issue of IEEE Transactions on Communications.

If an idea is good, it will always re-surface in the better form and
if it is bad, who cares whether it is archived or not. If an idea was
rejected because it was pre-mature, the author will most likely submit
it later in some other form. It is hard to believe that mankind is
losing pearls of wisdom by throwing away rejected IDs.

Those who are concerned about history - I thought there is enough
history in the minutes of IETF meetings, and other reports and list
archives where all good drafts are discussed any way.

Even then, one may possibly make a case for preserving working group
ID-s to keep trail of the discussions, but individual submissions are
what they are - drafts of work in progress and not worth preserving. I
see no benefit in preserving them because if the authors see any
values in their work, they can always submit these works to
conferences and journals by suitably developing them further. It will
be a bad idea to make IETF a free archival publication centre for all
kind of materials.

Cheers,

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:36:57 -0400

> be not worth publishing as an RFC? What is next? Click on XX for paper

Reason 1:

"We considered that back in 1997, and it didn't work then"....

Reason 2:

"We considered that back in 1997, it sounded really cool then, but nobody
knew how to make it work so we didn't pursue it".

I think reason 2 is the more compelling - I'm told the (probably apocryphal)
story of NASA researching resurrecting the Saturn-V launch booster for very
heavy payloads that are beyond the Shuttle weight limit, but having to scrap
the idea because some critical information on exactly how to start up a
J-5 rocket engine had been lost in the mists of time....

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:27:23 -0700 (PDT)

% Reason 2:
% 
% "We considered that back in 1997, it sounded really cool then, but nobody
% knew how to make it work so we didn't pursue it".
% 
% I think reason 2 is the more compelling i

This is sound. A couple of folks I have great respect for both came up
with the same basic thought, that we should revisit failed ideas every
decade or so to validate the the underlying presumptions/assumptions
are still true.

However.  Some IDs that I have generated in the past five years were generated
with the following conditions.

------------

This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance with 
Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF with any 
rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task 
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups 
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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.  It 
is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite 
them other than as "work in progress."

-----------

Two key points here. The first paragraph explicitly denys the IETF from
doing anything w/ the document other than publishing it as an ID.
The second point is that the document, as submitted, is only valid, AS an ID,
for a maximum of six months from the instance of inital publication by
the IETF.

So, at this point, the document in question is not an Internet Draft, valid
or otherwise. 

Does the "IETF" or ISOC have the right to reconsitute it? Without the authors
consent?  What about attribution if it is morphed into an ISOC approved
ID?

What constitutes "validity"?

--bill

---

From: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:38:47 -0700

Hi Bill,

> If you want to make the files hard to change, try a pgp signature.

I have no problem with that, but it's not enough.  I'm interested in
putting something in front of a trade press person that they cannot ignore.
Perhaps the watermark should simply be "REJECTED or EXPIRED".

Hmmm.... I think this stuff could all be done with commonly available UNIX
tools...

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:09:50 -0700

Bill Manning wrote:
	[..from boilerplate..]
> 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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:12:54 -0400

> So, at this point, the document in question is not an Internet Draft, valid

OK.. curiosity has overcome me - what status did you *intend* for the
document to have? I see two different interpretations here:

1) "It's valid as an I-D for 6 months and if it's not progressed by then, 
I want it to dissapear"

2) "If it doesn't progress as an I-D, it's withdrawn off the I-D track but
still usable as historic information".

I'm looking at case 2 as similar to granting one-time rights to a journal
to publish an interview, but people reading it in the back issues for years
to come....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT)

% On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:27:23 PDT, Bill Manning said:
% > Two key points here. The first paragraph explicitly denys the IETF from
% > doing anything w/ the document other than publishing it as an ID.
% > The second point is that the document, as submitted, is only valid, AS an ID,
% > for a maximum of six months from the instance of inital publication by
% > the IETF.
% > 
% > So, at this point, the document in question is not an Internet Draft, valid
% > or otherwise. 
% 
% 2) "If it doesn't progress as an I-D, it's withdrawn off the I-D track but
% still usable as historic information".
% 
% I'm looking at case 2 as similar to granting one-time rights to a journal
% to publish an interview, but people reading it in the back issues for years
% to come....
% -- 

The draft was not the product of an IETF wg and was intended for Informational
RFC status.  The IESG/IAB declined to accept it w/o the ISOC boilerplate and
so the document lives on in the FreeBSD & LINUX FAQs as well as at least
two published books and as part of network operational culture. 
So it might be applicable to your #2 above, with the one distinction that
the IETF is going to -republish- the material, i.e. folks won't be reading
back issues, its a current publication of the IETF.  

I feel that the IETF had at least six months to decide they wanted the material 
in the IETF document series. They declined. Are they allowed to republish w/o
my consent?  

--bill

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT)

% 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

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:24:59 -0400

> I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG".

Too WG-centric, e.g., if draft-jaye-http-trust-state-mgt-01.txt has
expired (it has), and if the HTTP WG has shut down (it has), then no
interested party (using the above suggested definition of "validity")
can exist. Mind, it (and some others) were WG I-Ds at some prior time.

An individual I-D may expire into static dustfullness, or into IRTF
work, or into a non-WG RFC publication. I'm not sure I covered all of
the WG-avoidant alternatives, but WGs aren't the only (or best) metric
of utility, validity, or even humor.

Cheers,
Eric

P.S. This document was deleted on March 20, 2000.

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:44:00 -0700

>         as an IETF function, esp. given the language in the boilerplate?

I dont see the definition of 'valid' as being binding on anyone
to *not* be interested in the document after 6 months, only that
no-one should *presume* the IETF cares about the I-D if it is more
than 6 months old. If in addition you've revoked the IETF's right to
copy your I-D's words after 6 months, any WG newly interested in your
old work simply has to find a different set of words to express those
ideas.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:00:26 -0700

Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> can exist.

My definition is that 'validity' simply warns interested readers
of the limited conclusions one can reach about an I-D's
relevance to IETF activities once the I-D has passed the
magical 6 month marker. Since work is done in WGs, and I-Ds
foster work, then being WG-centric is a pragmatic definition
of 'validity'. And thus the definition doesn't have to speak to
the issue of whether other non-IETF interested parties exist.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:22:48 -0400

> the issue of whether other non-IETF interested parties exist.

I picked the HTTP WG example because work isn't done in (this) WG,
and Individual IDs may share the "foster work" property (counter
examples exist), hence being WG-centric means overlooking the case
of draft-jaye-, and were the 6 months expiry without exception, of
fixing rfc2109 also.

WGs are not procedurally necessary for a draft to reach publication,
so the pragmatism of WG-centric metrics for validity is ... novel.

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:54:38 -0400

> old work simply has to find a different set of words to express those

That's assuming you *know* what the idea was, in detail enough to be
able to write it down.  Of course, if you understand it THAT well, you
probably don't need access to it to refresh your memory..

Question 1: How many people were in the IPNG working group when O'Dell
posted his draft?

Question 2: How many still remember what the 8+8 proposal addressed
in general terms?

Question 3: How many can re-create the proposal from memory?

(My answers - (1) I was there, (2) it sparked a lot of discussion regarding
multihoming and (3) I can't remember without peeking anything more than
"Oh Yeah, O'Dell had an interesting idea about that....". ;)

Question 4: How much would the ideas in that draft influence the multihoming
discussion happening just 2 weeks ago on the NANOG mailing list?

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:08:38 -0700

[..]
> WGs are not procedurally necessary for a draft to reach publication,

So we add "and/or IESG" to the list of IETF/IRTF organs who might
be interested in an I-D, that's not much of a stretch.
After 6 months and no re-issue an I-D can be considered to be
of no interest to WGs or the IESG. That's all the warning
about 'validity' needs to convey to interested parties
who may be perusing a real or hypothetical archive of I-Ds.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:01:45 -0400

> So we add "and/or IESG" to the list ...

Um, they don't have a monopoly on omnicience, to approxi-quote Fred, and
cannot be an exhaustive remedy for WG and I-ID expiry. If they were, then
I wouldn't be writing draft-brunner-iesg-http-cookies-wrong-00.txt.

Incidently, this arises out of the expired draft + defunct WG case which
I originally posed.  An informational RFC with the catchy title "RFC xxxx
(BCP) Considered Harmful" ought to happen once in a while, as RFC means
"request for comments". I'd prefer not to be its author, but some things
are more awkward to go around.

Anyway, I only mention this to point out that WG-Centric doesn't make a
compelling answer, and adding jrandom body of experts isn't as compelling
as just getting it right, even if individually.

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: Betsy Brennan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:30:56 -0400

Why are the 'old' documents deleted? because they are considered useless?
to save space? to cut down on search hits? BLB

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:03:40 -0700

Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> cannot be an exhaustive remedy for WG and I-ID expiry.

We are clearly talking cross purposes. The question of a 'valid'
I-D was posed in the context of enforced expiration after 6 months.
Clearly 'valid' is related to the meaning of 'not yet expired'
and therefore is related to whether any ongoing work in the IETF
(which I suggest happens in WGs or the IESG, regardless of the
limitations of either fora) is still using (and revising) said I-D.
When the IETF ceases to utilize a particular I-D it drifts off
agendas, isn't revised, and falls into the expired (and hence not-valid)
state. Which brings me back to my original, limited definition of
what it means for an I-D to be 'valid'. Omniscience on the part
of anyone is not required.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:53:41 -0400

Grenville,

I don't mind that you don't find anything valid in my little bit of our
exchange, that was the point -- WGs, IESG, inexpiry, etc., aren't the
exhaustive sources of "validity".

Incidently, the "isn't revised, and falls into the expired (and hence
not-valid) state" applies to both the HTTP man-mech and trusted-labels
drafts, modulo one wasn't expired even though not revised. Counterexamples
to your "valid due to inexpiry" status check exist, not all with 1 April
time stamps.

Anyway, in keeping with my indifference to fashion, I'll leave validity
to its finders, as the original issue was author's intent.

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: Peter Deutsch in Mountain View <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:17:13 -0400

> the discussion that we decided that I-Ds would be ephemeral documents.

A couple of people are claiming to represent the intent of people "back
then" - maybe I should go back to the Historical Internet Drafts
Directory and review that debate to see whether everyone is remembering
history correctly. Ooops, I can't do that until there *is* an Historical
Internet Drafts directory!  :-)

Sorry to poke fun, I *do* respect your opinion of what was the group
think intent from tat period, but frankly time has moved on and we all
have different needs than we did back then. I remember this whole thread
getting a treatment something like a year ago and I argued then for
institutional memory. I also argued that some of the participants of the
IETF seem to have developed an exagerated sense of the group's real
importance and ability to control how others perceive it. 

Bottom line is that access to historical information is useful. The IETF
should (and I'm glad to hear, will) make this material available. As
Martha Stewart says, "And this is good".

					- peterd

>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    Part 1.2   Type: application/pgp-signature

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch                               work email: 
[email-masked]
Technical Leader
Content Services Business Unit                 private:
[email-masked]
Cisco Systems                                     or  : [email-masked]

             Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:16:35 -0700 (PDT)

% Bottom line is that access to historical information is useful. The IETF
% should (and I'm glad to hear, will) make this material available. As
% Martha Stewart says, "And this is good".
% 
% 					- peterd

I think that the IETF secretary will be on shaky ground if it proceeds.
See Mo's thoughts on past history.  Now if there is a desire, then change
the rules for future drafts and I'm happy. The past is the past.

-- 
--bill