> > I have yet to see a coherent argument for keeping the ID series if it's > archived publicly. Why do we need to see the entire process - in public > - of editing and revision? And if we do, why do we need two separate > series to do this?
It's not a document series, it's preserving history - exactly the same way that the mailing list archives do, using the exact same arguments. (And incidentally, the exact same situation wrt. "getting published".)
If you argue that you want to abolish the mailing list archives, I think you'll find strong opposition; I certainly do not see why the I-D situation is any different.
MfG Kai
This "preserving history" notion is an obfuscation. If there is a stable reference to each particular I-D, then the set of I-Ds with those stable references necessarily form an archival document series.
The Original Intent of the IETF founding fathers was that the RFCs should
form the stable, archival document series for the Internet technology,
containing its entire intellectual history (to use Scott's term), while I-Ds were to be
ephemeral. This is analogous to academic publication; we archive only
the finished papers, not the 17 drafts that go into the production of each paper.
Publication in a conference or journal is a filter that keeps us from hopelessly
garbaging up the intellectual record. The FFs believed that preserving I-Ds would
lead to such a garbage pile with piles of chaff for every grain of wheat. Of
course, the IETF has drifted far away from this OI.
But then, you knew all that.
Bob Braden
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
