[ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR

[Joe Touch]

Simone Molendini wrote:
> 
>>> 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.

What this and several followups ignores is the impact on the authors.

Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will be 
fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less of this 
'good or bad' research to preserve.

Once the IDs become archival, they end up being an undistinguished tech 
report series. We already have them - all over the place.

The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they are NOT 
archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be a void.

Consider the impact on the stream of published information, as well as 
the fact that there are already other ways to publish archival information.

Joe