[ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR

[Joe Touch]

Mike Padlipsky wrote:
> what i take to be a false, or at best misleading, premise ['So, IDs 
> could be as valuable as RFCs.'] and the non-sequitur drawn from it 
> ['Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so 
> cheap?'] has generated an awful lot of fuss.
...
> joe's underlying objection seems to me to be that the rules should not 
> be changed _retroactively_. 

There are two separate threads that I have promoted:

	1) that the rules cannot be changed retroactively
	2) that the current rules are desirable and provide
	the characteristic uniqueness of the ID series,
	and should be preserved.

I accept that authors do, will, and have always had the chance to opt-in 
to a public archive. Perhaps paradoxically, I have vigorously defended 
my right to refuse permission to others to post my prior IDs (at least 
the ones that I was primary author on), but continue to serve some on my 
own website and have offered them without hesitation to individuals who 
requested them.

> granted, that might just make me a swine, before whom perls shldn't be 
> dropped, but how about a simpler approach?  update whatever rfc [or 
> other series] document it was that established the 6-month lifetime for 
> 'id's', or write a new one if necessary, and, explicitly in light of the 
> _possible_ 'historical' value of making the information available for 
> more than 6 months, add a provision that when submitted, 'id's' may be 
> declared by their authors to be archivable after 'expiration', iff [sic] 
> the authors choose to make such declaration.  

The ID "RFC" 'rules' state only that the IETF assures that it will serve 
the drafts for 6 months, and that they are not to be cited as other than 
work in progress.

Authors could always declare their works in the public domain, thus 
allowing anyone to serve them. It's simple - something akin to "Right is 
hereby granted, in perpituity, for non-profit use and disemmination of 
this document."

I have issue only that this not be required as a condition of 
publication of IDs, to ensure that the past character of the IDs as 
ephemeral (when desired, as always) is retained.

Joe