perhaps I-Ds are more like elaborated lab notebooks?
very useful for patent references, reviewing dead ends, partly
explored ideas, etc. One doesn't typically throw away lab
notebooks just because you didn't write a published paper
based on them.
vint
At 12:23 PM 9/27/2000 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2000 09:58 -0400 RJ Atkinson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At 12:07 27/09/00, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>
>>> Archival material is *extremely* important for
>>> future research.
>>
>> The archival material is the RFC --*only*--.
>
>Melinda,
>
>I've got very mixed feelings about this topic: I understand the
>reasons for an archive, but I'm extremely concerned that, as
>Keith, Ran, and others have pointed out, turning I-Ds into a
>permanent record may make it harder to get half-baked ideas
>exposed in the community rapidly enough that we can make
>progress.
>
>The "library" analogy to an I-D is, I suspect, an unpublished,
>privately-circulated, draft of something that might evolve into
>a book. Such drafts are, precisely as you suggest, invaluable
>for historical research into the development and evolution of
>ideas. But, when they are retained and available at all, they
>are traditionally also severely encumbered as to access.
>Restrictions such as "no access during the author's lifetime",
>"no access while the copyright on the final publication is still
>in effect", or "no access without special arrangements that
>require identification of the researcher and purpose of the
>research" are all, as you must know, fairly common.
>
>I, and I suspect many others reading this, have early drafts of
>books in my personal library that contain materials that were
>removed to make the books short enough to be published. Some of
>those materials are valuable technically as well as historically
>and an author would have to twist my arm fairly hard to get me
>to destroy or return them. But I feel at least morally
>obligated to honor that author's request to not duplicate or
>cite that material without explicit, case-by-case, permission.
>
>I find it interesting in this regard that you cite long-dead
>authors and painters in your comparison; I strongly suspect that
>a library which obtained personal journals or letters from a
>contemporary figure and made them widely available without
>permission would find itself in deep legal and professional
>difficulties.
>
>It seems to me that the real question here is not whether I-D
>materials should be retained for historical or related purposes
>or not: almost no one seems to be questioning that. Instead, I
>think it would be helpful if the people and communities with
>experience in the area, especially the library one, would help
>us find appropriate analogies to the restrictions on access that
>often characterize collections of what may be similar character.
>
>
>In particular, "make it available, but make it hard to get to"
>suggestions don't impress me as quite right. As someone who has
>put out some fairly dumb ideas in I-Ds that I'd prefer not be
>generally circulated --especially with the implication that they
>are my final, considered, thoughts on those subjects-- I'd far
>prefer that anyone who wanted to get to an old I-D needed to
>identify him or herself and a reason. I'm not particularly
>concerned about whether or not the reason is audited or formally
>verified, nor do I think the lists of people who made the
>requests need be public (although I'd assume authors should have
>access to the list for their materials), but I think there ought
>to be a record.
>
>Does that seem unreasonable to you as a librarian? Can you
>suggest a way to accomplish it?
>
> john
