[ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR

[Joe Touch]

Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote:
> 	I absolutely agree with this thread (Rahmat/David/Simone's comments)
> 	on preserving IDs to record the evolution of design, i.e. our
> 	history.  The "path" can be more interesting than the "end result". 
> 
> 	Since my focus (this last year ) has been on the early Arpanet 
> 	design issues, I have been aided by the abundance of RFCs which discuss
> 	a specific design.  (of course, I still wish that more minutes of the
> 	design meetings were preserved   -- if anyone has any non-published
> 	minutes 1969-1974 please let me know ....;-) 
> 
> ------>	It's important to note that the early RFCs functioned in the role 
> 	of both of the following: 
> 		* today's Internet Drafts, and 
> 		* email: some of the early RFCs would today just have been
> 		  in today's email archives of the working groups. 
> 
> 	While current IETF working groups seem to be great about archiving
> 	email, a similar issue of lost resources seems to be occurring when 
> 	working groups conclude.   At this point, no email archive is linked 
> 	into the IETF web pages that describe the work of the concluded 
> 	groups...   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/index.html
> 
> 	So, I suggest that the IETF web masters should archive
> 	the concluded email as well. 

I agree that archiving mail that was archived to begin with would be 
useful. I'm opposed to archiving intermediate process when the authors 
explicitly chose to provide a non-archival form.

If authors want to archive their results, they are free to publish them 
in more conventional venues, even in their intermediate form.

When someone says "this is off the record" it is off the record. That's 
what IDs are, very explicitly.

Joe