I am not trying to engage in the argument about citation.
Your draft, as I read it, calls for removing the notion of draft
expiry. If you want to move the marking for expiry to the datatracker
and associated metadata, that would not be a "no-expiry" It would be a
"move-expiry" request. If that is what you want, then write that.
Yours,
Joel
PS: I have read the draft multiple times. If I have managed to misread
it, I apologize.
On 1/25/2024 8:17 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, at 10:15, Joel Halpern wrote:
I don't care where the expiry information lives. I care that it exists,
and is treated as meaningful. If all you want to do is what Brian asks,
to remove the date from the draft and replace it with a pointer to the
datatracker, but keep the expiring process otherwise intact, I could
live with that. But it is not what your draft requests.
I don't want to sound disingenuous, but I don't think that it does request something else.
If you are asserting that it requests that people be able to reference Internet-Draft documents, then I'm probably more confused than you. The draft describes what already happens in that people cite I-Ds. That how it is has been done for ages, but many others, but also by the IETF. We can't request something of the IETF in that regard because the parts the IETF has control over already happened. We can't request something of non-IETF uses.
Was there something else that this requests?
