dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Jun 17 10:42:09 CEST 2003
HTA> part of the problem may be that we're so used to using the RFC series for
HTA> *everything* that needs to be permanently archived and identifiable.
In fact we should consider carefully what purposes there are in
retention, and should consider responding to them differentially.
Example purposes that might warrant different retention policies:
- scientific posterity
- use in current operational systems
- aid research on prior art
- use in legal challenges of IETF process
- general education of participants
- specific review of wg discussion and decision history
We currently have 3 retention policies:
1. Permanaent / Ready access -- RFCs
2. Officially short term / Actually maybe permanent / Obscure
access -- I-Ds
3. Random -- WG mailing lists
Gaining some agreement on our needs and then gaining some agreement on
the ways to satisfy them would seem to be quite helpful.
I have come to believe that we need two different sets of permanant
archives. One for official publications, namely RFCs. The other is for
use in the various research efforts, both legal and technical, that crop
up. For these latter efforts, wg mailing lists, I-Ds, and the like
should be accessible, but lack any formal status.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
More information about the Problem-statement