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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I can live with that.  There probably are several ways to skin this cat 
so that new folks looking at our IDs don't get confused about what is 
current and what is not being considered.

Yours,

Joel

On 9/3/2023 10:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 04-Sep-23 13:22, Joel Halpern wrote:
>> I think forcing tombstones would be a very good idea.  Deciding when to
>> do so may be more than a little interesting.
>
> Tombstones were nothing but a nuisance when they existed. What's the 
> point?
> It just adds cruft to https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/.
>
> Of course, if an author *wants* to submit an I-D saying "This idea has
> been abandoned", that would be fine, but I don't think there will be
> many takers.
>
> My suggestion (just sent) is simply to make drafts >1 year old invisible
> in the default search.
>
>    Brian
>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> On 9/3/2023 9:06 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> On 04/09/2023 01:23, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The draft seems fine to me. I'd suggest adding a
>>> recommendation that it'd be useful to publish a
>>> tombstone version for drafts that are no longer
>>> under consideration (at that point in time) as I
>>> do think we have a small problem with drafts that
>>> are going nowhere, but that not being visible to
>>> readers. Not a big deal, but could be worthwhile,
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>