RE: Working documents repository

["Spencer Dawkins" <sdawkins at nortelnetworks.com>]

I'm not quite sure how this might work.

I'm thinking that the percentage of internet drafts that should live on is
pretty small. I'm not questioning that some internet drafts should live on,
I'm just not sure how to identify the ones that should.

The question should include the possibility of specific versions of internet
drafts living on. I remember Jonathan Rosenberg's Wide Area SLP draft
version 00 as an amazingly visionary document that got chopped down in
version 01 to something (that might have been) more manageable. The version
to keep was 00, not 01 or a later version.

I would love to NOT keep every editorial version of every internet draft
around (substituting too much institutional memory for, maybe, too little).

Is requesting publication as an informational RFC the wrong thing to do?
publication as a historical RFC? (which is probably the intent, anyway?)
These possibilities would allow a conscious decision that "this internet
draft needs to be checkpointed and preserved", and I think this decision
needs to be made explicitly.

(signed) curious

Also - I'm not saying that my experience is universally applicable, but in
the areas I've worked in, I see a lot of "person X suggested this in 1987"
comments, so I'm not sure that the internet community's institutional memory
is all THAT short.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Casati, Alessio (Alessio) [SMTP:acasati at lucent.com]
> Sent:	Monday, August 16, 1999 4:07 AM
> To:	'ietf at ietf.org'
> Subject:	Working documents repository
> 
> It happens quite often that working documents
> like the one  this folk is looking for get
> forgotten simply because the standard process
> works this way.
> 
> Still, there may be some interest (at least 
> for historians:) to preserve documents that
> otherwise would disappear.
> 
> Sometimes good ideas disappear with them.
> 
> Is it possible the IETF will keep a repository
> of expired working documents? or is it a non
> affordable cost?
> 
> 
> I just note that in order to prevent the loss
> of the "Two bits differentiated services architecture"
> the authors submitted it as a non std track RFC.
> 
> Alessio
> 
> PS  there was an article about working documents
> getting lost on an issue of IEEE Networks, 
> and I share the concerns of its author.
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	G. Ensuque[SMTP:guilhem.ensuque at BT.COM]
> > Reply To: 	guilhem.ensuque at BT.COM
> > Sent: 	16 August 1999 09:46
> > To: 	MOBILE-IP at STANDARDS.NORTELNETWORKS.COM
> > Subject: 	[MOBILE-IP] Wanted: old hierarchical FA draft
> > 
> > Hi all again
> > 
> > I would be extremely grateful if someone could send me the now expired
> > draft
> > by Charlie Perkins on Hierarchical Foreign Agents
> > (draft-ietf-mobileip-hierfa-00) as I cannot
> > 
> > Thanks in advance
> > 
> > Guilhem Ensuque
> > 
> > Mobility Futures Unit                           guilhem.ensuque at bt.com
> > B55-131B
> > BT Advanced Communications Technology Centre
> > Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath
> > IPSWICH IP5 3RE                              Tel: +44 1473 645 232
> > UK                                                   Fax: +44 1473 646
> 885
> > 
> 
> -
> This message was passed through ietf+censored at alvestrand.no, which
> is a sublist of ietf at ietf.org. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.