Comments on draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-03

[S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Martin, Paul,

It is a bit odd to set a rule against citing expired Internet-Drafts 
when people do not follow the rule in practice.  I would like to 
thank both of you for stepping forward to point that out.

Section 3.1 explains the rationale for the expiration of a 
draft.  Nowadays, it takes a few years, or more, instead of less than 
185 days, for a draft to reach Last-Call.  Have you considered 
changing the six months to X years to align with existing practice?

If I had any problem, it would be about the IPR disclosure aspect or 
the divergence between an IETF I-D and an I-D in another Stream.  Are 
such problems in scope for your draft?

The "work in progress" (Section 2.2) might be viewed as mislabelling 
when an I-D is abandonware.  Having an expiry date is a way to get around that.

The proposal paves the way for what is known as "living 
standards".  The idea of "living standards" originated from the 
WHATWG in 2011.  That may work well when all the major vendors are on board.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy