On 24 Jan 2024, at 8:30, Ted Hardie wrote: > Seeing Eliot and Russ's points, I think that this could be the basis of a > valuable change, but that it may need additional work. We have changed our > system to recognize that these drafts no longer disappear, because it was > clear that external archives had made that a fait accompli. But this is > asking for something different, declaring that the TTL field has no meaning > at all. This is kind of a mis-statement about what the draft says. The draft says that there is no "TTL field", not that it exists but has no meaning. > I think we can probably do better, by making it more variable, allowing any > party to set it shorter than the default 6 months, but requiring some > action beyond the author's preference to set it longer than a specific > amount. With a specific set of circumstances, I can easily see one of the > values being "no expiry". If there are concerns that this does not fit all > cases, the answer may be to allow both that and other choices, using a set > of processes which need to be ironed out. It sounds like you are proposing keeping the concept of expiration, but making it have variable time. Maybe I'm being uncreative, but I don't see how this could possibly be implemented given that the expiration time is instantiated in the draft itself. Can you model out how you thought the variable expiration time would be known to the reader of the draft, or in the many places that the draft is stored? --Paul Hoffman
