Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-00.txt

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

On 06-Nov-19 19:29, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 11/5/19 11:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> Well, one of our chronic problems is that nobody reads the boilerplate anyway. Either way, I still like the expiry date but of course we need more than just your and my opinion.
> 
> I like the expiry date also.   At the very least it helps people see, to 
> a rough approximation, which internet-drafts are being maintained and 
> which are not.
> 
> I also think that if one is searching for a particular (current) I-D, 
> the default search results shouldn't be flooded with drafts that are 
> arbitrarily old.  

Yes, that's an important practical point. I regularly make use of the 3rd
radio button in the tracker's "Additional search criteria ", namely
"Internet-Draft (expired, replaced or withdrawn)". If there was no standard
expiry lifetime, I'd need an "older than..." button instead. More work for
the tools team...

> But maybe that's the only purpose that an expiry date 
> serves any more.    If a WG wants to adopt a draft that's > 6 months 
> old, I don't see why they shouldn't do so.

Indeed, although current practice seems to be to ask the authors to
post an updated version.

   Brian