On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 05:09:31PM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jan 2024, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > Unless the plan is to have the tombstone contain text from the authors > > > explaining why they abandoned the draft (good luck with that), what > > > advantage would that have over the datatracker saying the draft is inactive? > > > > It makes it harder to jump directly to the text of the draft without having > > seen the notation about the draft's status. (That is, if you start just > > from a draft name or a version-less link, you get the tombstone; you'd need > > to go straight to a version-specific link to skip it.) > > When I go to the URL with the draft name and no version, I see the > datatracker page that says Expired in a couple of places and has an ugly > orange box that says in bold face "This Internet-Draft is no longer active." > > I'm trying to imagine a scenario where someone fails to understand what that > means and instead needs to download a file that also says "It's dead, Jim." > What am I missing? In the circles I frequent, there's a decent number of links to the html(ized) version of a draft, such as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-v3-guide-to where "expired" is hiding in a sidebar that I (at least) have trained myself to basically ignore. The situation is more as you describe if I were to go to the main datatracker page, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-v3-guide-to/ . So I think it rather depends on which "URL with the draft name and no version" you are thinking of/visiting. > I suppose if you rsync the I-D directory you only see the drafts, but I'd > think the overlap between people who are motivated enough to set up rsync > and those don't understand how to check for expired or inactive would be > rather small. Agreed. -Ben
