Joel, OK, understood! /Loa > 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,JoelSent 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 Joel,I don't think that keeping the expiry info in the draft is > broken, I havelived with it for close to 40 years and it has served us > well. Since it isnot 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?>>
