Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs

From: Craig Partridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:12:03 -0500

I'm with John.  There are many good reasons to use paper (such as we've
successfully used it as
an archival technology for roughly 2000 years -- show me a digital system
with a similar track record).

Thanks!

Craig

-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
For Raytheon business, please email: craig. <[email-masked]>
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:41:11 -0800

On 2/16/2017 2:12 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> I'm with John.  There are many good reasons to use paper (such as
> we've successfully used it as
> an archival technology for roughly 2000 years -- show me a digital
> system with a similar track record).

That's going to be hard to *prove* for another 2000 years.

I see the point about full archival technology, but I don't think we
should be second-guessing professional librarians. A box of wood pulp,
even on acid-free paper, also has the potential for being destroyed by
fire, water, bugs, etc.

IMO, the proposed approach of offloading this issue to professional
librarians seems more than sufficient. If THEY decide that printing out
reams of pulp and boxing it up is the way to go, then they can make that
decision. I don't think we need to second guess them.

Joe

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:43:30 -0600

> system with a similar track record).

Or a computer printout that old. I have laser printouts from college on 
which the toner has largely detached from the page -- and I'm not even 
into three digits old, much less four.

We haven't priced out hiring monks to transcribe RFCs onto vellum, so 
the performance of 2000-year-old manuscripts is hardly relevant.

/a

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:45:49 -0500

> decision. I don't think we need to second guess them.

I agree with this, very strongly.  If a bunch of people came along to
tell us how much our network technology could be improved on the basis
of their own opinions, however well informed, we might point out that
we have a large community fed by many different experiences.  Why is
this expertise in an area not our own any different?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Craig Partridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:49:41 -0500

Hi Joe:

Keep in mind that I do communicate occasionally with professional
archivists.  They remain torn between the need to try to find a way to
save digital artifacts and a strong sense that their solutions are likely to
fail.

I agree that asking a professional librarian is a fine solution.  But I
would
ask them the question in the form: would you prefer printed copies on
archival paper or digital copy? (As opposed to the -- "can you archive
digital material?" -- to which they feel obliged to try to say yes, but may
prefer to say no).

Craig

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:52:01 -0800

Hi, Craig,

On 2/16/2017 2:49 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> archivists. 
As do I, as recently as last week FWIW...

> They remain torn between the need to try to find a way to
> I agree that asking a professional librarian is a fine solution.  But
> I would

Then perhaps the way forward is to suggest that the RFC Editor make the
RFCs available for archive at multiple sites, but to let those sites
determine the best way to preserve that material.

Joe

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:02:41 -0800

> digital material?" -- to which they feel obliged to try to say yes, but may

+1.  And given the observed controversy, this means asking a number of 
independent archivists.

I suggest then producing the union of their answers, not the intersection.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net