On 07-Dec-24 17:07, Christian Huitema wrote:
On 12/2/2024 1:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
michael,
perhaps some of your perceived ambiguities could be reduced by the
ietf returning to no longer playing git repo for us, and stop formally
archiving expired internet-drafts? after all, they are expired.
We initially did that for a patent reasons -- having documented prior
art is sometimes very useful, even if the prior are was in a draft. I do
not think that reason has disappeared.
Then, it is also very useful to examine the diff between successive
versions. You call that "playing git repo", but i would rather have the
archive on an IETF server than in a third party tool like GitHub.
+1. However, I'd like us to get rid of the "expires in six months" myth.
Because we *need* an I-D archive for IPR reasons and to meet the IETF's
goal of an open process, there really isn't any point at all to
artificial churn every 6 months. For active drafts, we get churn every
4 months (or less). Anyone can see the date on inactive drafts and draw
the appropriate conclusion. I like the fact that the tracker flips
the status to inactive after 6 months, but we can eliminate makework
churn by removing the word "expired" and the expiry warning messages.
BTW this is an IETF process discussion, not an RFC process discussion.
I've attempted to move it to the IETF list.
Can we do something with draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry?
Brian
