What about this one?
It's been expired for almost three decades but it is what much of the Internet uses for logging.
It is not 'retired' nor is it 'inactive' but it is final. I have no intention of modifying it.
What I don't like about the current situation is it is difficult to know if some document is being actively worked on or just churned endlessly to stop it expiring.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 12:55 PM Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"inactive" seems too weak but "expired" seems too strong. How about "retired". Something can always come out of retirement...Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxxOn Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 11:47 AM Bill Gage <billgage.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:+1
Maybe "inactive" rather than "expired" or "unsupported"?
/bill
On 2024-12-11 6:07 p.m., Joel Halpern wrote:
> 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.
>>
