On 1/24/24 10:21, Lars Eggert wrote:
I was asked to AD sponsor draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-03, and am willing to do so. Before I initiate a formal last-call, I'd like to do a substitute of a WGLC and ask interested IETF participants to give this a final read and indicate whether they are OK with seeing this go forward. Please send feedback along those lines by Feb 4.
I'm OK. Some thoughts occurred during reading: Section 1: OLD processes to misunderstand how old drafts may used in practice. NEW processes to misunderstand how old drafts may be used in practice. Section 2 says: The date of posting for an Internet-Draft is the best -- or perhaps only -- information available that can be added to a document the time of publication that might help readers understand whether the content is valid. I doubt that's correct. The validity of the content might not depend on a date at all. For example, RFC 6229 contains test vectors only, and their validity has nothing to do with the time of publication. Section 2.1 suggests as new text: | At any time, an Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent | version of the same specification. "same specification" sounds sub-optimal to me; it might invite discussions later on whether a given document update is the "same" specification or not. Drafts generally can be freely replaced; suggest dropping "of the same specification". Also, consider using OLD/NEW style (as in Section 2.2). Section 3 says: authors being able to change the status of their draft, either to mark a draft [...] as "inactive" or [...]as "active" For individual drafts, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this flag. An "active" flag that has been set might remain forever, and if that happens to enough drafts, inferences from the flag become unreliable overall. That would mean that the following goal from Section 3.1 would not be achievable: People might choose to concentrate their efforts on drafts that have been recently updated. With "active" and "inactive" markings, those people will have another indicator for which documents might be of While nudging authors of stale "active" drafts before meetings might mitigate this to some extent, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to not have the flag at all as long as a draft has initial individual status, and reserve the active/inactive values for documents that have made it into some kind of official process. I also took a brief look to see whether the Tao needs updating, but I don't think so. Thanks, Peter -- https://desec.io/
