Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
From: "John Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12 Dec 2024 13:12:51 -0500
Cc: billgage.ietf@xxxxxxxxx
Cleverness: minimal
In-reply-to: <439cc755-5ae4-4662-a94e-da5bc316488f@gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <CAChr6SxZBY_crb2McF6_-4Z-iaHD3uqyLcC35FqL5A=nb5_dAg@mail.gmail.com> <13d0d416-4f1b-7c96-ca7a-6b3cb1ba1612@foobar.org> <CAChr6SycxL3KQWJd_RmhDsaG5nmEYRSptSZ+OOc719RvZ_yfDA@mail.gmail.com> <04e9cc75-7397-4964-bff2-cad4da4cfedf@joelhalpern.com> <439cc755-5ae4-4662-a94e-da5bc316488f@gmail.com>

It appears that Bill Gage  <billgage.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>+1
>
>Maybe "inactive" rather than "expired" or "unsupported"?

See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-iduse/

We're going in circles here.

R's,
John

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
  - From: Bill Gage
- Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
  - From: Salz, Rich

References:
- Re: RE: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
  - From: Rob Sayre
- Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
  - From: Nick Hilliard
- Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
  - From: Rob Sayre
- Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
  - From: Joel Halpern
- Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
  - From: Bill Gage

Prev by Date: Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
Next by Date: [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-16
Previous by thread: Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
Next by thread: Re: [rfc-i] I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Mhonarc] [Fedora Users]