Re: Processing of Expired Internet-Drafts

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

 



On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Fred Baker wrote:

    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.

I don't feel strong about this issue either way.

I will observe that from the point of view of the Secretariat, if they
don't keep I-Ds around forever they probably should not keep tombstones
around forever either, which really only means I don't see the problem
they are solving by keeping them.

Keeping them around forever is a role filled nicely by the archiving
mirrors (although this presupposes incrementing the version number if a
revision is submitted).

Certainly, a tombstone should be removed if a revision is submitted,
which would be a change to the new rules as documented.

Jim



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