Joel, I don't think that keeping the expiry info in the draft is broken, I have lived with it for close to 40 years and it has served us well. Since it is not broken, why try to mend it? /Loa > 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? > >
