Re: [Gendispatch] A gendispatch session at IETF 118?

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 9/4/23 2:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I don't mind drafts hanging out somewhere accessible, but can we 
> separate expiry from removal or archiving?
>
> We already have a problem with internet-drafts being misrepresented as 
> being more than they are.  Right now, at least someone reading the 
> thing can point to the top and say, “Hey! This draft expired!”  In 
> fact, I would love to add a watermark on a draft that is expired; 
> diagonal for HTML and PDF, and more prominent top and bottom for text.
>
> Also, I would suggest that rsync and other tools not have to retrieve 
> expired work.  The drafts directory is cluttered as it is.

Just to be sure you know - there are two endpoints for rsync-ing drafts:

internet-drafts    - The Internet Draft Repository (currently active drafts)
id-archive         - The Internet Draft Archive (both active and expired 
drafts)

RjS


>
> Also, as ISE I use the expiration as a signal that the authors may 
> have lost interest in their work.  I'm sure WG chairs do the same.
>
> Eliot
>
> On 04.09.23 02:23, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, at 16:48, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) wrote:
>>> Do you feel the need that we meet at IETF 118?
>>> Please let us know if you have any topic you'd like to discuss.
>> Paul and I just submitted 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-01
>>
>> We've talked about this in the past.  This version contains a 
>> suggested response to the criticism that the last version received.
>>
>> This might not be justification for a meeting on its own, but if the 
>> group is meeting, we'd appreciate some time to discuss.
>>
>