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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 04/09/2023 02:22, 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.

FWIW, I wasn't aiming that we force tombstones, but
rather that we (probably esp WG chairs) encourage
'em. And as Martin has said about other things, it's
likely details wouldn't need to be in the draft so
a simple example and bit of encouraging text could
be enough here. (If that were where we landed - I'd
not object if this suggestion were dropped in the
end.)

Cheers,
S.

> 
> 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.
>> 
>>