Re: Processing of Expired Internet-Drafts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 09:56 AM 1/14/2004, James M Galvin wrote:
I had several conversations with Steve Coya about it back then and
pushed very hard to get that version number incremented for the
tombstone file.  It would be silly (if not shameful) to take a step
backwards now.

I'm not sure it is backwards. If it is deemed to solve a problem (not obvious to me), it creates another.


I'd be happier bumping the number any time the file is changed, so that the tombstone supercedes the removed file and a subsequent posting supercedes the tombstone.

I am very concerned about the accumulation of tombstones forever, though. If we don't want to accumulate draft versions forever, what makes tombstones different? I would far rather age them out after some interval, such as six months.



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]