In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson typed:
>>For most of the time it is just plain stupid, however, there are material wich
>>is published in ID form but later down the line is being dropped but still form
>>the fundament for design decissions made in IDs making it all the way to RFC.
very good point - one of the marvellus thing about the older RFCs is
that they typically DO still inlude the discussio nthat led to the
design choices expressed - in recent years, we have tended to move
more towards the ieee/itu/iso in anonymising work, and in removing discussion
of the alternates and reasons for not using them from final versions
of RFCs...this is a big mistake.
>>Now, if you are going to write a book and want to discuss this backdrop and
>>give a fuller picture then you will have to refer to these IDs. This is really
>>a problem which the IETF has aswell, since this material is not available it is
>>not as easy for a newcommer to get the full picture as those involved in the
>>process has. For instance IPv6 has this problem. When you are in the process,
>>you should feel that it is the Right Thing to drop this old material, but the
>>question is if it is really the Right Thing in the long run. Some of these IDs
>>should really be considered as being published as Informational RFCs for the
>>purpose of giving the background material.
agree completely....
>>
>>> >I'm not sure of the next case. Any body observed this?
>>> >3. An RFC refers to an Internet Draft.
>>>
>>> Never (except as "work in progress", as noted above - and then the draft is
>>> not mentioned by filename).
>>This is a case where having this old background material could be valuble to
>>have.
>>
>>Note, certainly will not all IDs be of interest, but some of them do represent
>>knowledge which should be considered worthy of keeping.
>>
>>IMHO this is a problem, but it is not apparent for everyone being "in" the
>>process, but some is aware of this...
>>
of course, just coz a book is printed doesnt mean it can't be
obsoleted too (c.f. the old testament :-) arggggggg, no.....i mean
2nd editions can fix typos in earlier ones is all, not darwin versus
creation....
cheers
jon
