I also concur with this suggestion. This modification would also assist us to find expired drafts containing good ideas but that were either introduced before the community became interested in the topic or else were not renewed due to procedural issues (i.e., not due to their lack of technical merit). I am sure that others in our community are interested in many drafts which we are unable to read due to more pressing local work-related pressures and then are disappointed that we can't find the draft once the work pressures permit us time to read the previously deferred drafts. There are many reasons why some drafts fail to receive resonance and this approach would increase the probability of technically viable ideas not timing out and becoming lost. -----Original Message----- From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:tytso@xxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:49 AM To: Fred Baker Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Processing of Expired Internet-Drafts On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:43:58AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote: > > It seems to me that there is a better approach to the above, at least in > the context of the above. If the "tombstone" is literally as described, it > would be far more space/search/etc efficient for us to have the tombstone > consist of an added text line in a file indicating that the named draft > expired on a certain date, and keep separate files for the active internet > drafts. It seems to me that this makes it simpler to maintain a mirror and > to find temporary documents. I would prefer this as well. - Ted