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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I guess whether this makes sense depends upon what problem you are 
seeking to solve.

If the problem to be solved is the alignment between the marking 
(expired) and the reality (deprecated), then it would seem that the 
simpler solution is to change the tag to say "deprecated at" and tweak 
the boilerplate slightly to align.  Thus, without being too verbose we 
retain the desired properties and warn people about those properties.

Yours,

Joel

On 9/4/2023 3:04 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023, at 13:55, Joel Halpern wrote:
>> 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?
> One approach is to include drafts that have been updated in the past X days.  X might even be 185.
>
> Another might be to list drafts that have been updated since the second-to-last IETF meeting (following the suggestion in the draft about reminders).
>
> I didn't want to answer this question in the draft, as it relates to how the datatracker operates and is probably something that we could adjust over time.  It is possible that we might allow different groups or different users to adopt different approaches.
>
> The substantive change here is that there is less boilerplate.  Also, that boilerplate does not attempt to claim something that is demonstrably false.  Also, I would suggest that expiration reminders not be sent, though we might replace that with a reminder akin to the one suggested in the draft.