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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

In hopes that it will help, let me try asking the question a different way.

One of the things the datatracker does is report on the Internet Drafts 
that are associated with a working group, but not currently adopted.  It 
does not include in that report expired Internet Drafts.  That 
limitation is very helpful.  If we remove expiration, do you propose 
that we instead put in a date mark that tells the system when to stop 
including the draft in the associated drafts list?  If so, how is that 
substantively different from the current practice?

Yours,

Joel

On 9/3/2023 10:57 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>