Re: I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Sun, 08 December 2024 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0243AC14F5F1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2024 11:55:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tlTl40QO-w4w for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2024 11:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE53C14F5E9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 2024 11:55:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=m3bgXEN6f5my3HSXxaT7tr9p4BErXmzLtVo5pjvkBvo=; b=Bp9XtTE4sVMRA4vdNw9TdMx9ac k0yJ5Vxp99HwHB2QwZCfahoI6P78HV3/YlZDfARwmPkhRMpqO2do0g81GVkqN+8El/0884I1hptEt f+VteD0Tl5Nzs6w75QOblzV2Xj9XE6yEM633cJSPu2Pdt6/Epp0AU0ZA3Z/a4sfYIenxrFLZq2h6A IfJ+GOQu467C//KGfq2tGxregHiIqHtC2sr+upXqJFAnsafk/Ah1HGc2A8HcbXGntJxl85+9WYt3q et5DNB0vp+EEwc4dyNqvYzqfHQMygPcg8kxWCqAJeFicppRwnDhO1Lskf5nll9Jt+6FbLMtSltxzp hZBmGl5g==;
Received: from [172.58.211.142] (port=7949 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1tKNNM-008f8B-11; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 14:55:32 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.200.121\))
Subject: Re: I-D expiry [was Re: RFCs vs Standards]
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <20241208180202.8AA82AC2D2C5@ary.qy>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2024 11:55:20 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <88CF6156-BA1C-4BD1-9F6F-A19BFF7C6258@strayalpha.com>
References: <BE95E617-C929-43BA-BB40-41E189A8158B@akamai.com> <71bcb4f8-e147-a6cb-3c67-b6daef61f309@mindrot.org> <26439.33533.129915.244853@fireball.acr.fi> <SY8P300MB0711C796AB6095C788556516EE292@SY8P300MB0711.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <15450.1732763286@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <3029EB03-6E7A-47CB-9682-F511CB51EE17@akamai.com> <10065.1732826193@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CACsn0cmWVeFdJ3dzMj5SV4XpJF4rssULtfQ1moeefoq-Evhk=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGL5yWb=tLvMOYFKT3ffVbcy7BAD=i4B0VHEUdkvwRvZ3X3Bsw@mail.gmail.com> <m2mshh4v8l.wl-randy@psg.com> <CABcZeBMjxNbBMYU2p3_a8-5VCExgmY-7XLof7die05YOEX-38A@mail.gmail.com> <70419651-6443-4393-9ca1-8a1c98a68db0@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBNtBRxi5zSf9OvUip2AtyVD6Wt9+kQESuUzo-=Kur9+ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <fac981d9-2fe9-4a84-8af1-845acd72af58@cs.tcd.ie> <14124.1733073164@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <d52ee080-814b-46fd-9e0f-41349941eeac@cs.tcd.ie> <1384.1733077486@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <m2frn53g8h.wl-randy@psg.com> <D019151E-2D04-4C93-8A4F-0EB4FBB502EA@strayalpha.com> <20241208180202.8AA82AC2D2C5@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.200.121)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Message-ID-Hash: CG7EU6OAVJATVXXCWKLGOE2CDUYRAIPS
X-Message-ID-Hash: CG7EU6OAVJATVXXCWKLGOE2CDUYRAIPS
X-MailFrom: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ClF1EqKKIxSOflhEP2XJmevakGU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>

On Dec 8, 2024, at 10:02 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears that touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com> said:
>>>> I'd like us to get rid of the "expires in six months" myth.
>> 
>> I felt the original intent had significant merit, but was undermined by permanent archive and access of drafts.
> 
> I was under the impression that the original intent of six months was
> to prevent the disk on an FTP server from filling up forty years ago.

The 6-mos disappearance rule was intended in the spirit of “letters” to encourage half-baked or unbaked idea sharing. The fact that they were originally deleted after 6 mos was supposed to overcome the hesitation of a “permanent record” for the author.

That’s from conversations with multiple people, including Jon and others. That’s part of why I was so vocally against archiving them except for patent disputes and why I still have not authorized the archive of any of my drafts published before the ISOC was given blanket rights for such archives.

I wasn’t a file space issue, as far as I’ve ever heard.

>> why people can’t be convinced to simply have another look at a document twice a year, update what needs to be updated, and resubmit.  Yes, the resubmission may take 10
>> minutes, but there is only one mandatory resubmission per period versus a large number of people that will benefit from this periodic review.
> 
> I'm sure I am not the only person here who has a script that increments the version number
> and resubmits a draft.  While it only takes about 15 seconds, it strikes me as performative
> silliness.  If there's stuff to change in a draft and it might be of interest to other
> people, I'll update it.

Agreed. It’s not those 15 seconds. Is that, multiple by 10, staggered over the calendar, and includes navigating near continuous changes to the submission interface as well as the additional silliness of closing the ID submission window before - but not during - IETFs.

If we want to fix anything with real impact, let’s start with killing off that window. Everyone end-runs around it (posting drafts elsewhere) for documents being discussed, and it serves no purpose for docs not being discussed.

Joe