Re: Processing of Expired Internet-Drafts

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

 



Fred Baker wrote:

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.

IMHO, if tombstones get removed after 6 months, the search interface on ietf.org should still be able to report that the document with a given name existed but expired.
I've been several times in a position when I had to search for a draft that has expired more than 6 months ago.


Alexey
__________________________________________
Isode Limited, http://www.isode.com

IETF standard related pages:
http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/Links.html

Personal Home Page: http://www.melnikov.ca
__________________________________________




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