On 2024-01-24 6:33 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
I tend to look at drafts from the perspective of the potential
implementer, placing a premium on interoperability. Documents left on
the shelf to rot (and yes, from the perspective of an ever-changing
environment, they do rot) may be historically interesting, but rarely
foster interoperability with anything other than premature
implementations built using the same obsolete draft.
That's what section 3 of the draft addresses. Can you tell us why you
think it won't work?
Because it requires the reader of any I-D to know to consult something
outside the draft, without the I-D itself saying such consultation is
necessary. The failure mode (for lazy readers) is not fail-safe,
which seems ironic when a major motivation for the change is the reality
that I-Ds escape into the wild.
I'd be less skeptical if the proposed boilerplate text effectively said
"at any given moment, this material is inappropriate for citation or use
beyond the circumstances [datatracker] identifies as being appropriate
for use of this Internet-Draft at the time." I'm sure someone else can
say this much more clearly and elegantly.
Randy
