It appears that Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- >Robert > >On 27.01.2024 02:20, Rob Sayre wrote: >> >> Right. So, the draft boilerplate is wrong. That is the point. > >If that is the point, then there is a problem with the English >language. Expire does not mean "disappear". Back in the good old days that's what it meant for I-Ds. Disks were smaller and after six months, drafts were deleted from the folder which was mostly retrieved by FTP. I would still like to get some agreement on what problem we're solving and then come back and decide what terms to use. Personally, I thought that the problem was that the six month expiration told you nothing useful, since there are all sorts of reasons a draft might stop being interesting in less than six months or remain interesting longer. A related problem is that the only way to extend past six months is to resubmit which is confusing since readers have to look and see if something changed or it was just to reset the clock. So I would like a more direct way for authors, and maybe others, to directly mark their drafts something like active or inactive (or other words to be decided later.) I wouldn't be opposed to having them become inactive by default after six months, but that's a detail. If people want a way to add tombstone versions, whether by publishing an I-D and immediately marking it inactive or something more complicated, that's fine too but it's also a detail. R's, John
