If we could easily make small changes, I could live with changing "expires" to "unsupported". I like the fact that drafts fall off working group indices when they are more than 6 months old with change. I grant that they don't really expire, and that claiming they do so can confuse some people. Having said that, we seem to be unable to agree on even small thigns :-)
Yours,
Joel
On 12/11/2024 5:55 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 2:25 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Rob Sayre wrote on 11/12/2024 22:00:
> I find the "expiration" (does not expire, it can just be on GitHub)
> policy to be something that concerns overly officious people.
[...]Creating technical fossils by design bothers me. Internet operations are
changing to be much more process-driven. This is causing people to
accept what's documented as being legit. I would argue that it's
important to be able to point to a document with very little standing
and say that it formally has very standing. Unless we keep the concept
of default expiry, we lose this.
We totally disagree on this point, and that's OK. If you make the process too tough, you'll just get WHATWG or something like that.
I would say there are many "fossils" that have RFC numbers. I think I would just do I-Ds and refuse to go through the standardization process. That's pretty much how it works now, anyway. If something does well, sure, write it down.
thanks,Rob
