Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947741201EA for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:38:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DvI7U6L8_8cI for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA1FF12006F for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 20:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id k13so4936189pgh.3 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 20:38:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PzoI9zVAprHVJxZLYYtdLdGLwCvo9Hzmf8vF2pOcVjc=; b=jA/UtZuqOnUppZ6L9wHwoQ8Hl+Wr3+Bd8Ipiam59vmGGgOLOmcNsjadFtIYMlmEy/B iD6m0fNrHxTv/f0llt43iWR8SPdYFg6O5eMtLf1DqqzQIQPhV8TAVzRJgFXf0gZ88J80 43nxBmYwz/y4pSEh4zvqIPAwWVB1Uu7QgrnpuqtZHs1fdRytgwPWIZdTHcKX6RfZvsbw SHUFBzanu6gVZ9xhDRw/xXWkBOCB4L+8u66exMoHeSPbypPhM+PxnmKEaLNcAjHFj3fJ km3fjlBzgttyCzRVlrQ+jVTzs04fgQDno+PdyOteG2L1Qb/ZKnYyKjlp4hV7Hu6QAHHl Dm+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PzoI9zVAprHVJxZLYYtdLdGLwCvo9Hzmf8vF2pOcVjc=; b=jUsl3S2w3Pfd4oMC2mh0XV/D/wMcVzZOVb7JegjBmAisMSYEst7e8m4pLzLDuruZsc PvG3j/5LSsHmVOh+2uKdXnInH/OKSol4oH+AXvlQvTwOZTOS782IGmvC7hsH4C0j9qfO RmSCEdi1/b/HVI9cstHhmYSURtDx56n18I4RoFkGBrISA89ixIUt6gXwYIyb0euuUm/b /OmZ/K7OmycIi4DhoRgWmrqydoBpqeG3XpH4OZvgxXXwTGtzGS8hzM5cg3gwERjuY45v 8gIzTWWLB5MjyqQ6F+O06bjZv9z1bsVzfFx0VtL1QvdOxQIVFsxSkurux6aRgaMcDbmj yBqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXMzp+P7BwHtim2O9O3EnsBF9fe7sz3RYoqTAAeajESX29q8WZr NTquu9R2D9JEe9UcZmYoo5oTaZGM
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy/qbonDGVKsPB0hbxzJhgCrhwE3uKoC15RRkWeeHz6XNBqS7lfOzn/LuFgPRd0ilZ6K9TRFA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:2d81:: with SMTP id t123mr575085pgt.306.1573015115862; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 20:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (8.166.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.166.8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w62sm24102564pfb.15.2019.11.05.20.38.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 20:38:35 -0800 (PST)
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org
References: <157290645420.13916.12275765354821078575@ietfa.amsl.com> <afe1d8ef-979d-6c8f-0fe6-b69a2d3d3f56@gmail.com> <E1922906-E8B5-45CF-A107-23DAA14735B2@episteme.net> <b586075e-a459-43b7-9e3b-b676e3218fa5@www.fastmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5544f9b3-8768-f164-ea07-fd2d8b789ef9@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 17:38:32 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b586075e-a459-43b7-9e3b-b676e3218fa5@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/4n2T4EY00LK4TSdmd2saXF7xg8U>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-00.txt
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 04:38:38 -0000

On 06-Nov-19 17:17, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019, at 10:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> Given that Martin isn't subscribed to the gendispatch list, I expect 
>> he'll need to be Cc'ed to see this. I have now done so.
>>
>> Martin, shall I take this to mean that you'd like agenda time in 
>> Singapore?
> 
> Sure, and thanks Pete.  I thought that I was already subscribed.  An error on my part.
> 
>> On 4 Nov 2019, at 16:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> First a major nit: I-D expiry is mandated by RFC2026:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.1.2
>>> The mention in RFC2418 is incidental.
> 
> Section 6.1.2 talks about standards actions, duration of last calls, etc..  I couldn't find a single mention of draft expiration.

My stupid error, sorry. Try https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-2.2:

   An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
   unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
   without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
   simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory. 

That's where the expiry thing originated.

> 
> Section 6.1.1 says:
> 
>> It shall remain as an Internet-Draft for a period of time, not less than two weeks, [...]
> 
> Which I guess could be read to infer an expiry time.  If so, then I guess that this *could* update that too.  It's a little too oblique to bother with.  That period of time could be interpreted as "until the IETF is no more", without invalidating 2026 at all.
> 
>>> While the choice of 6 months might seem arbitary, the defined
>>> date of expiry IMHO helps to communicate to readers that
>>> a draft is only a draft. And it also acts as a signal that
>>> there might be a lack of momentum behind a proposal, if a
>>> draft has expired without being updated.
> 
> Is it not sufficient for the draft to indicate that it is a draft?  I'm not proposing that we remove that notice.

Well, one of our chronic problems is that nobody reads the boilerplate anyway. Either way, I still like the expiry date but of course we need more than just your and my opinion.

    Brian
>