Subject: [Tools-discuss] tools.ietf.org/id issue (?)

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:27:35 +0100

Hi, trying http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark
I get http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark with
an option to look at:
                                                     ______
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-02.txt-26

What I really wanted was the last available txt or rfcmarkup of
<http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-04>

That gets me a 404 (expired October 31), -05 is the tombstone.
I still have -04 in my "special interest draft collection"...

http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-04.txt

...but actually I intend to remove the public access to this
"I-D collection" when http://tools.ietf.org/id is officially
announced.
                      Bye, Frank

P.S. (joke):  I managed to "beat" the URL length for e.g.
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark> with
<http://purl.net/net/draft/stumpf-dns-mtamark> by seven
characters before I got the idea that "tools.ietf.org/html/"
already uses the relevant "tools.ietf.org/id/" output... ;-)

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:50:46 +0100

Hi Frank,

> <http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-04>

Yah.  There was a bunch of .txt-NNN documents which messed up
things; remainders of completing the repository some time ago.
I've removed them and things should work as expected now.

> "I-D collection" when http://tools.ietf.org/id is officially

Right.  I mostly need to put in place an automatic opt-out
feature for authors who doesn't want their old drafts available,
I think.

> already uses the relevant "tools.ietf.org/id/" output... ;-)

Heh :-)

	Henrik

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:31:51 +0100

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> things should work as expected now.

Yes, great, thanks.

> I mostly need to put in place an automatic opt-out feature
> for authors who doesn't want their old drafts available,
> I think.

ACK, but admittedly I don't see how you want to implement
"automatic".  It's something authors could decide when they
submit a draft, with a manual feature to change their mind
later (e.g. by submitting an explicit tombstone).

 [ shorter <http://purl.net/net/draft/stumpf-dns-mtamark> ]
> Heh :-)

http://purl.net/maint/display.pl.cgi?noedit=on&purl=/NET/draft/&id=nobody
shows my first version - before I saw that this was a waste of
time, because you already do it for tools.ietf.org/html/draft-

                             Bye, Frank

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:57:18 +0100

> later (e.g. by submitting an explicit tombstone).

Well, yes - but there's the legacy drafts to handle, which
have been submitted with the expectancy of 6 months lifetime.

The automatic opt-out is for the change-of-mind part:

With the appropriate checks and guards against spam, 
the idea is to basically have a button (it'll probably be on
a separate page) which says "I'm the author and I don't want
this old draft of mine available here."  I'll parse the draft,
extract the author email, send a cookie to (each of) the author(s)
and if returned from all authors, set a flag to mark the draft
hidden.  After that, you'll get some kind of tombstone instead
of the draft.  (With an opt-in link for the author(s)).

Of course, I have to provide manual handling, even so...  but
it has to be plain and easy for people to take their drafts
out of circulation, not because I expect the workload of actually
doing manual flagging to be heavy, but because people need to
see that the mechanism exist, and even try it out if they have
doubts.

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:26:45 +0100

Let's not forget that there is nothing in the IETF rules
that says drafts can be withdrawn after publication. All
that is said is that they will be removed from the active
directory after expiry.

Although I think most of the archive operators have accepted
requests to remove drafts at the author's request, I'm not sure
that is anything but politeness. Once a document is public,
it's public. (I don't know the legal position and we may need to
check it at some time, but you generally can't unpublish something,
although a court can order copies to be destroyed.)

So while we probably need an unpublish button, I think it should not
be made too easy.

     Brian