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

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.