Hi Loa,
On 26-Jan-24 18:45, loa@xxxxx wrote:
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?
I think it is broken (and has been for many of those 40 years). It perhaps made
sense in the days when we all had to print the drafts and read paper copies,
although of course the draft was datestamped anyway and we could all add six months if we needed to. But it was always informationless, because you still couldn't find out if a draft was current from the date - you had to look in an ftp directory to see if there was a new one, or read the announcement list every day. Today we have the tracker, which tells us everything, and the expiry date tells us nothing.
Regards
Brian
/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"Â 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?
.
