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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.
>