On 1/28/2004 8:15 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > Conclusions, all mine: > > - Documenting current procedures is good. - We won't expire tombstones. > They're not a big enough problem yet. - We'll think about naming > tombstones something else than the exact draft name (for instance > draft-whatever-version-nn-expired.txt???) - We'll note the issue of > referencing names without the version number as input for thinking > about overhauling the whole I-D system. But that won't happen very > quickly - it "mostly works". > > Seems to make sense? How about using the draft name without a version number as placeholder? That placeholder file can either reference the current version, or it can contain the tombstone text. For example, draft-whatever.txt can either contain a pointer to draft-whatever-nn.txt or can contain text that the last version of that I-D was -nn but has since expired. That eliminates naming collisions, allows for mirroring based on the filedate alone, and provides a running reference to the latest version which can either be fetched directly (if active) or can be retrieved from an archival system (if expired). Other useful information could also be provided in the placeholder, such as referencing the I-D's current progress through the channels, referencing any RFC which may have been published, and so forth. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/