I prefer "inactive" because it's a simple statement of fact (nobody has updated this for the last six months or more). RFC 1 is inactive. draft-hallam-http-logfile is inactive. The fact that one of them is in use and the other isn't is orthogonal to the document's state. Regards Brian On 13-Dec-24 06:53, Donald Eastlake 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@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 11:47 AM Bill Gage <billgage.ietf@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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. >>
