this seems to give I-Ds too much stature - imo this would be better Internet-Drafts are draft documents that may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." For the current status of this draft, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-draft-draft/ . Scott > On Jan 27, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 28-Jan-24 07:40, John Levine wrote: > >> I would still like to get some agreement on what problem we're solving > > Thank you. > > I think that the problem is that the current boilerplate in every draft is misleading. We wonder why people ignore the boilerplate. Well, the fact that it's misleading certainly doesn't help. > > Without even touching RFC2026, which does not prescribe the boilerplate, we could do something like this: > > OLD: > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 April 2024. > > NEW: > Internet-Drafts are draft documents that may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. For the current status of this draft, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-draft-draft/ . > > (I also think that 6-monthly refreshes of drafts are wasteful, but there is clearly no consensus about that.) > > Brian >
