On Dec 7, 2024, at 3:51 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 7. Dec 2024, at 22:29, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I'd like us to get rid of the "expires in six months" myth. > > +1 +1 I felt the original intent had significant merit, but was undermined by permanent archive and access of drafts. > I do think that the expiry process is beneficial, just the statement about an expired I-D (or any I-D) being inappropriate to cite is in comical disagreement with the reality of documents that are made widely available for some time. I sincerely don’t know why we still make this nostalgic statement. > > On the 6-month validity of an I-D, I’m very much in favor of rhythms that power work, and I also don’t like to work from stale information. I’m having a hard time why people can’t be convinced to simply have another look at a document twice a year, update what needs to be updated, and resubmit. Yes, the resubmission may take 10 minutes, but there is only one mandatory resubmission per period versus a large number of people that will benefit from this periodic review. Then there are documents that take literally years to get people to look at, while we authors are sitting there updating the docs. I can’t speak for others, but I gave up on that years ago. I update a doc when it needs updating, not simply because it “expires” by a self-contradictory process that also archives them permanently. Joe
