Subject: Re: archives (was The other parts of the report....

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:25:12 -0400 (EDT)

Something was pointed out to me in private mail that I should have 
remembered but did not.

Since Aug 1998 the IETF proceedings have included the then-current 
Internet drafts (except for one meeting which seems to be missing).

As I recall, this was started when the secretariat started offering CDs 
of the proceedings and there was extra space on the CDs. It was 
decided to include the IDs since the space was there to do so. 
(My memory is that Steve Coya suggested this to the IESG and the 
IESG thought it was a good idea.)

Anyway - that means that most IDs since mid 1998 are already posted on
the IETF web site, they are just not posted in an easy to use way.

see

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/ 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99mar/I-D/ 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99jul/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99nov/I-D/
00mar - missing
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00jul/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00dec/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01mar/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/I-D/
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/04mar/I-D/

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:01:15 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Scott -

Thanks for pointing out the proceedings.  Having the i-d's published
there certainly demonstrates how futile it is to pretend that we
can erase history.  The position that Bill Manning and Joe Touch are
taking reminds of when I was ordered by the Secretary-General of
the ITU to erase all Internet copies of their standards.

I was a little puzzled by the strong reaction of both Bill Manning
and Joe Touch.  They seem to be bringing up two points:

1. Bill has pointed out that some I-D's are *not* offered in
accordance with section 10 of rfc2026 and thus, as I understand
his reasoning, he only granted a 6-month license to publish.

2. Joe seems to take a stronger position, which is all I-D's are
(or have been) granted only a 6-month license to publish.

I went back and reviewed the RFC's (many of which you wrote),
and they are extremely unclear on the subject.  In fact, 2026
makes it clear that all the I-D's will be archived.  Earlier
docs don't touch on the subject.  And, the preamble appended
to every draft is pretty unclear.

What is clear is that an I-D is "valid" for only six months.
As I understand that term it means "on the table for consideration
by the IESG or others as a possible standard."

With all due respect, it seems to me that there is no prior
policy on this subject and the texts are very much subject to
differing interpretations.  I believe both Bill and Joe are taking
very extreme positions on the subject and I'm not sure their views
reflect anything resembling a prior policy, or even a universal
understanding.  It seems like a very legalistic interpretation
of a very vague policy, and (imho) that policy goes against
core values like openess, and transparency.

In any case, it does sound like decomposing the problem into two
pieces makes sense:

1. make a clear going-forward "keep all drafts in an archive" policy
2. figure out if there might be a community consensus to decide
   what the prior policy was, perhaps using a mechanism such as
   opt-out if there is a vocal but very small minority who disagrees.

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:19:47 -0700 (PDT)

Having gone through this particular debate a few times before, let
me just repeat what others have told me when I suggested we keep
our documents archived and accessible:

- Vendors are "stupid" and will claim compliance with a work-in-progress
  document instead of a final standard. This is "very bad"

- Drafts often change along the way (including being completely discarded
  as "bad ideas") and we should discard such snapshots in case someone
  gets the wrong idea from reading one.

Needless to say, I don't really buy these arguments. As someone who
publishes articles where the only existing reference might be an ID at
the time of writing, I believe there are better mechanisms we could
use (as we do with RFCs and the "Obsoletes/Obsoleted by" tags).

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT)

Ole -

I agree that the IETF has a special responsibility to properly present
the archive ... we can't simply lay a big ftp directory out there and
make no efforts to show how a particular file fits in context.

On the other hand, ietf.org could certainly beg/borrow/steal some of 
the work being done in places like potaroo.net and watersprings.org.  
Some things that could be done include:

1. Add some clear text that explains the role of the i-d historical
repository

2. Link to previous and future versions of a draft (including any resulting 
RFC)

3. Link to any relevant mailing list discussions

4. Find related drafts or place the draft in the context of a working group

5. Add a very clear indication that the particular document in question is
"Expired"

As to citing work-in-progress instead of the final standard, well, hmmm ...
if we don't have our own repository, there isn't much we can do.  On the
other hand, if a customer/reader/journalist were able to go to ietf.org
and pull up the document in question, perhaps it could be really clear
what the status is?  If we want to make clear that a document is expired,
it is much better to say so rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

Regards,

Carl

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:12:51 -0400

Folks,

I'm not sure whether this puts me in agreement with Paul
Hoffman's "re-flogging" comment or not, but The Report was
presented to the community as not interacting with the Standards
Process at all.  Well, the issues about how to handle expired
I-Ds, whether or not they expire, etc., etc., are definitely
connected with the Standards Process.  So we either need to
redefine what the report, and discussions about the report, are
about, or this discussion needs to be taken into a distinctly
separate thread.

Just my opinion, of course.
   john

--On Saturday, 11 September, 2004 13:48 -0700 Carl Malamud
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ole -
> 
> I agree that the IETF has a special responsibility to properly
> present the archive ... we can't simply lay a big ftp
> directory out there and make no efforts to show how a
> particular file fits in context.
> 
> On the other hand, ietf.org could certainly beg/borrow/steal
> some of  the work being done in places like potaroo.net and
> watersprings.org.   Some things that could be done include:
> 
> 1. Add some clear text that explains the role of the i-d
> historical repository
> 
> 2. Link to previous and future versions of a draft (including
> any resulting  RFC)
> 
> 5. Add a very clear indication that the particular document in
> question is "Expired"
> 
> As to citing work-in-progress instead of the final standard,
> well, hmmm ... if we don't have our own repository, there
> isn't much we can do.  On the other hand, if a
> customer/reader/journalist were able to go to ietf.org and
> pull up the document in question, perhaps it could be really
> clear what the status is?  If we want to make clear that a
> document is expired, it is much better to say so rather than
> pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Carl
> 
>> 
>> - Vendors are "stupid" and will claim compliance with a
>> work-in-progress document instead of a final standard. This
>>   is "very bad"
>> 
>> - Drafts often change along the way (including being
>> completely discarded as "bad ideas") and we should discard
>>   such snapshots in case someone gets the wrong idea from
>>   reading one.
>> 
>> Needless to say, I don't really buy these arguments. As
>> someone who publishes articles where the only existing
>> reference might be an ID at the time of writing, I believe
>> there are better mechanisms we could use (as we do with RFCs
>> and the "Obsoletes/Obsoleted by" tags).
>> 
>> Ole
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:48:01 -0700 (PDT)

Sorry folks ... this is definitely a distinctly separate
thread from The Report.  :)  

Carl

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:50:45 -0700

> (or have been) granted only a 6-month license to publish.

SHOULD be. I understand that post 2026, the situation has changed, but 
only for the IETF. Not for third parties to republish.

But it is indeed confusing to grant the IETF rights in perpituity to 
publish something that EXPLICITLY is supposed to be removed from the 
public archive after 6 months.

> core values like openess, and transparency.

It reflects a belief that there is value in providing a forum for 
ephemeral documents, and that open discussion is uniquely enabled by 
that forum. I.e., it would be useful to consider WHY this was the 
original intent. It had nothing to do with protecting IPR; quite the 
contrary. It provides freedom to revise without having the earlier 
versions cited.

If that's not perceived to be useful anymore, let's cut the baloney and 
just publish all drafts as RFCs and be done with it. They'd at least 
have a unique ID number (draft names aren't necessarily ensured unique), 
and they'd all be archived.

If it is perceived to be useful, then authors need to be able to opt-out 
of archives, and previous docs need to not be published without an opt-in.

Joe