it's "work not formally progressed further" or "work at a point in time" Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx > On 28 Jan 2024, at 08:21, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Scott, > > I don't like the "work in progress" phrase. I occasionally have to cite very old drafts such as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-aeiou/ to explain to somebody why IPv6 is what it is, and those drafts are very definitely not "work in progress". I have no problem with the "reference material" phrase, but it is already implied by calling something a "draft". > > Regards > Brian > >> On 28-Jan-24 08:54, Scott Bradner wrote: >> 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 >>>
