Hi Ted, On 26-Jan-24 09:51, Ted Hardie wrote:
Hi Brian, I don't understand this objection: "None of that works if we leave any statement at all (either the 6 months text, or a purported expiry date) in the document itself." The field tells you either when the document's author thought it expired or when it will expire. This is not a change from our current practice. Yes, you can have an archival copy of something that has expired, but you know either that it is stale or when it will become so.
No, you don't know much at all. Version -07 might have been replaced after ten minutes by version -08, or it might still be in IESG processing 13 months after being posted. The expiry date given in the text is totally unreliable information. If we do nothing else we should remove it, but I'd much rather replace it by an explicit URL for the corresponding status page in the tracker. If we do that, I don't really care whether we abolish notional expiry as Martin proposes or not, but an explicit active/inactive bit does seem better to me. Brian
Am I missing something here? thanks, Ted Hardie On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 6:56 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: On 26-Jan-24 00:22, Ted Hardie wrote: ... > The default expiry of 6 months stays the same. > Anyone can for any reason declare an expiry of shorter than 6 months. > Any expiry beyond 6 months must be approved by the relevant part of the IETF/IAB/IRTF. In the case of standards track IETF drafts, that would be delegated to the working group chairs for the working group. There would need to be a designated stuckee for other types of drafts. None of that works if we leave any statement at all (either the 6 months text, or a purported expiry date) in the document itself. The only thing to say in the document, with today's hacked scheme or any future scheme, is "see the tracker for status". Brian
