I can happily live with the current state. While there are multiple reasons for thinking tge proposal a bad idea, I am focused on the claim that it could be put somewhere else. It could. And if the draft included that, thus concern would be dealt with. But getting rid of it without a replacement creates a situation where the default is no indication or enforcement of expiry anywhere. Which I think is a really bad result. I would have no problem if the dispatch process concluded that the draft should not be dispatched. The current state is one I can live with. Yours, Joel Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: loa@xxxxx Date: 1/26/24 12:45 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Joel Halpern <jmh.direct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>, no-draft-expiry@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx, alldispatch@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Alldispatch] Taking draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-03
forward 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? > > |
