---- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:21 PM > On 20/10/2015 18:58, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > ... > > Drafts were expiring sometime on the 20th of October (in, one presumes, the US, because no timezone was given, and the IETF is very much a US organisation. I live in Australia, no timezone for expiry time given on these emails.) > > Agree that stating it precisely in UTC would not be a bad thing, but... > > > So I refreshed the draft ready to do the necessary six-month accounting. > > ...if the only reason to re-post a draft is the expiry, it isn't worth > reposting, IMHO. In fact it's a bit deceptive: people might think the draft > is still under development when it isn't. Brian, Yes but ... For most of the life of the IETF, it has been difficult or impossible to get hold of an expired draft. At some point, the web site started making this possible, but I have never seen a commitment to doing so on into the future; and so many good innovations just vanish, perhaps because the world at large did not take them on. So yes, I would encourage a refresh unless and until it is clearly stated that the latest version of an I-D, no matter how long ago it was posted, will remain available in perpetuity, Tom Petch > > Only to discover that I-D submission had already closed at midnight UTC on the 19th because of the upcoming IETF meeting. Which wasn't mentioned in the email. > > Er, does it actually matter to anybody if the draft is refreshed with the same content > and a different date two weeks later? > > > Why not state the earlier submission deadline as well as a hard limit? > > See previous comment. > > Brian >