>>> I think it means "no longer current for the purposes of work and >>> discussion." > > Nothing in the Note Well, but there is specific text in the ID Guidelines > (written by the IESG): > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt > > 8. Expiring > > An Internet-Draft will expire exactly 185 days from the date that it > is posted on the IETF Web site (<http://www.ietf.org/id-info/>) > unless it is replaced by an updated version (in which case the clock > will start all over again for the new version, and the old version > will be removed from the I-D repository), or unless it is under > official review by the IESG (i.e., a request to publish it as an RFC > has been submitted)... > > I.e., this is not a matter of "interpretation". 'tis, apparently, because you are still interpreting it differently to how I am. There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and the text you cite later goes on to talk about the tombstone file that replaced it in the repository, which we can easily see when we go to the datatracker entry for an expired I-D. And then the statement you cite further goes on to say this: An expired I-D may be unexpired when necessary to further the work of the IETF, including IETF liaison with other standards bodies. Such action will be taken by request of an IESG member, a chair of the working group associated with the I-D, or one of the document authors. That *clearly* implies that it's not *gone*, else how could it be unexpired when necessary, by anyone's request? I'll also note, Joe, that you are the *only* one arguing this point. Does anyone agree with Joe? If not, it seems fair to say that it looks like you're well in the rough here. Barry