[ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR

[John Day]

>
>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.

This is not the case and has not been the case with other groups. 
You can most other standards groups and find written contributions 
suggesting changes to all or part of a draft under development along 
with rationale as to why the change should be made.  In some groups, 
you will even find a written record of how each comment or 
contribution on a document underdeveloped was dealt with and why.

I have not noticed that the fact this material is available in the 
group's paper trail has any effect on the amount or quality of the 
contributions.


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

Depends on how they are dealt with.

>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.

No the problem we have is there is a void.  To modify an old adage, 
those who can not know history are doomed to repeat it.  Actually now 
that you mention it that may explain alot.

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

Huh?

Take care,
John