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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D572E12012E for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:04:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BwMp6lggjJFG for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E2112012A for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id r18so10378484pgu.13 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:04:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=99H3O11M4SIu4PGG03ZWBezM/YhHhD0Z1cs8B2tr540=; b=a1Nbg8jJXwpjAuQW8A9t1baSiTRZtjtL5KySarw/QVNzSngEUdxYlH6j/4d0ol/qeo OUVcxb9CdsTRlkmKhVFA+Ei/kF8buepps+Ig1x8woPY/EFGLzzMivnKuo9VAbjG+FBUW l6hMrJQ8Kwdztt83WLaRwA3Dap2Jxipv7vUG83EUZaFfk9NSvyxD1Cbq0z7Iv7mvBWY6 yx6/tPZPWy+vZCaXvT1grliHVEeTIisbO3Sc6DByq4GRMQBJaVvlpCnCsR6z60zKvH6I zl9OSDzE1/GAfYwVK3FtJ2lCCxMy1Wdx+8A/sxTmaoswlOGw0B0RIX6xjkcOEUONj/ET WJtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=99H3O11M4SIu4PGG03ZWBezM/YhHhD0Z1cs8B2tr540=; b=uJKYp2uvr6p8mdrPQXasDPjd1xkNCy+sLQkYjW1Z/KlAi0hEhgxYl21mPk3fpFauK1 badbZ/Ea+ognqssDLZ/DwQHNdQR95eh+U+nhxG7bLKjyorKY/VmoURCZn0SL3WKH3yxa EqVtgafrF83Lygl/jJ7MhhDiaB6QS3PvgrLxDJ0lrBHLn9rfbLk7NEACG3Ucf2aNRQEE T6LjSPn3gTKfxop4L7NBunjhb65p/GfVvZ01GLz5avB4jS1+gn6f3lUqvhlmhHP3aJgF vmkejHP/9j26O9v6QFAf1PJSdS2fFrBflW7ptmpUM0XpELqzjW0lOuOQlwCs0mTXSU1L Otgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYomnSjqPyVBUhgqhabxaO3P88O9BtSj3694l0Y+For6l55i2+ FZ5xz8yyDgjWAV/yu62FXIHT79WC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzSVt8p36Dc7A8i8E5FXnkaHn6H6nOFErCG+GKFprviyntW+Yluxd81FkcE1xP5Ijn8D9C0eg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1624:: with SMTP id w36mr2028377pgl.404.1574121876147; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.158.74] (dhcp-9e4a.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.158.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o15sm26789320pgf.2.2019.11.18.16.04.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:04:35 -0800 (PST)
To: John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>
References: <D7F6018F-2FCD-4415-8F9B-BA6835267AE6@ericsson.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <446ac4ec-69f3-def5-0cc7-7267c84ae213@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:04:35 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D7F6018F-2FCD-4415-8F9B-BA6835267AE6@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/xWAngeQUIvbDUGfYMBC9u2cOVfc>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry-00.txt
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:04:39 -0000

John,
On 18-Nov-19 23:51, John Mattsson wrote:
> I agree with the arguments put forward in this draft. I agree that expiry should be removed, any negative shortcomings of this should be solved by updates to the tools.

That doesn't come free. I don't see the alleged harm done by the expiry date as serious enough to be worth fixing (for real $$). In particular, this from earlier discussion:

>>> 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...

> If a draft under special conditions does not expiry already today, having an expiry date in the actual draft is even wrong (it is then more expected expiry).

Well, it's not really *wrong* - it's more of a reminder that the IETF is really slow in progressing its work sometimes. 

> Some comments on the NEW text (the comments are more related to RFC 2418 than draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry)
> 
>    "NEW:
> 
>       Internet-Drafts are draft documents that may be updated, replaced,
>       or obsoleted by other documents at any time.  It is inappropriate
>       to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other
>       than as "work in progress."
> 
> The text on citing seems to not align with the text in RFC 2418
> 
>      "*   Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft    *
>       *   be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-    *
>       *   for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
>       *   with an Internet-Draft.                            *"

I don't see an inconsistency; the boilerplate is a summary. BTW that
text is in RFC 2026, not 2418.
 
> Also the wording "updated, replaced, or obsoleted" can easily be confused with the terminology "updates" and "obsoletes" that are used for RFCs. 

Huh? They are perfectly valid words with the same meaning in both cases.

Regards
     Brian