[ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR

[Simone Molendini]

>>So, IDs could be as valuable as RFCs.
>>Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so
>>cheap?
>
>The reason for ID disappearance has nothing to do with space.
>
>The IDs are deliberately ephemeral, intended to foster the open 
>exchange of partial ideas. Establishing them as archival from the 
>start imposes a hurdle that was percieved to inhibit this exchange.
>
>Some ideas do fall by the wayside, ideas which could have been 
>archived as Informational RFCs, technical reports, or published 
>papers. In cases where that has not been done, it was the authors' 
>choice not to pursue that route.
>
>FYI...
>
>Joe

You're right, but having a repository of the old drafts means saving 
almost all the (good or bad) Internet research in a much more 
complete manner than archiving the RFCs.

IDs could be tagged as "WORK IN PROGRESS" and shifted to "HISTORICAL" 
once they expire after 6 months; these drafts could be saved into two 
different directories.

I have a private collection of the drafts published in the last 
years: looking at the evolution of a protocol (e.g. CIDR) is a very 
useful exercise.

BTW:
Does the copyright prevent a site from allowng the access to old IDs 
? Does a (non-official) repository of old drafts exist in the 
Internet?

regards,
Simone