Re: [Gendispatch] Internet-Drafts Don't Expire

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

To be clear, I'm in favour of applying "ain't broke, don't fix" to this.
I agree that 6 months of inactivity is a useful trigger. However, an update
where *only* the date changes isn't much use, IMHO. It tells you that the
editor is still active, but it adds no value to the draft.

Regards
   Brian 

On 27-Nov-19 08:34, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> As a working group chair, I do expect the editors of WG drafts to 
> refresh them.  This tells me that they are continuing to participate, 
> and I do not need to find a new editor (or, conversely, that I do need 
> to find a new editor.)  Yes, I could set calendar reminders and send 
> email of my own.  For WG drafts, I think the expiration is useful to 
> help folks get a more accurate image from the WG page.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 11/26/2019 2:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> The question that came to me on the plane back was 'how many documents have to be put through IETF process purely to stop them expiring?'
>>
>> None. Since expired documents are available for ever, there is absolutely no point in "refreshing" a draft with no changes except the date. People do so, but I'm not sure why. I quite often cite https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-aeiou-00 when people propose alternatives to IPv6, as an example of a failed solution.
>>
>> Regards
>>     Brian
>>
>