On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, at 13:28, Joel Halpern wrote: > You assert that this draft only needs to do part of the job. I presume > there is reasoning that I do not follow that leads you to this conclusion. Well, I don't think that we need to publish an RFC that documents the conclusion. The extent to which the RFC series - or more specifically, the BCPs in that series - concretely document I-D expiration is extremely thin, as the draft demonstrates. The point of the draft is to completely move that notion outside of BCPs. The design team concluded that an exact replica of the current expiration rules could be put in place. But those are documented in the draft only as suggestions because we ALSO identified that there was a degree of discontent with the current inflexible arrangements and some modest enhancements were possible. Those enhancements are also documented in the draft.
