Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was asked to AD sponsor draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-03, and
> am willing to do so.
I have read the document.
I did not participate on the list, as I found I was too emotional about this topic.
I did not find the discussion around what some people believe to be
satisfying. Perhaps it was hard to capture the breadth of concern here.
I am probably in the rough here.
My perception is that a few people find that having to refresh their
documents every 5.5 months to be annoying. I do not perceive this as a
primary motivation, but it seems to be there underneath.
I have a number of drafts that are never intended to be published as RFCs,
but which serve as a kind of internal reference for a WG or community.
However, some documents have existed for a few years, waiting for a WG to
clear it's queue and adopt and publish them. I don't mind refreshing them.
Refreshing them is a bit like brushing my teeth. Carsten sometimes refers to
documents like as the "freezer"
I think that this act continues a community process (trend) which has been
raising the bar for RFC PS for many decades now. I was a NEWTRK fan.
However, I don't think that this trend is sustainable; this change to I-D
status will lighten the pressure to fix things. I think that it will further
the confusion outside the IETF as what's a STD and what's not.
The lack of actual expiry of I-Ds is, in my opinion, a rule like the 100kph
speed limit, which in fact the traffic almost always goes 112kph. Hard for
new drivers and autonomous vehicles to understand, but not hard to learn.
So, in the end, I am unhappy that we are doing this, but I see the need to do
it.
Perhaps, the DT will continue to tell me, at the six month minus a few days,
that my document is about to become inactive.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
