IETF Logo Mail Archive

[procon] Re: Should we call drafts "inactive" instead of "expired"?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 23 June 2026 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: procon@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: procon@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B821060F65A for <procon@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1782246865; bh=pY0rZjHV6S83wkkAtIiftfwbPM8z/tLQJDTAyMpckBI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=BgxQhmidr4wG5bTfyLCqlLXlnbeAlv41lgNkiweHTJrvPqvg2lT5H9A8EtPagSmA2 zrgIUlyA+ESvDQHyuWv3hGdlnLI3qb5dZs3dNwlN9n0DqndAJVnENeyNLGvDyIe9hh +J6CQrzG8wI1vd+QtMBTaEnnpLN6UvYMIiIlitzE=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cTSN_GSZMeAH for <procon@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-dy1-x132c.google.com (mail-dy1-x132c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85AAF1060F653 for <procon@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-dy1-x132c.google.com with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-30bf8b2bd20so539494eec.0 for <procon@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1782246859; x=1782851659; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pY0rZjHV6S83wkkAtIiftfwbPM8z/tLQJDTAyMpckBI=; b=Ruz8XalLY6DbuJzdeBtk/RuHgo9qDjSlR55rB8LsNsIKCOzfZPSatiITVNIMxE6MWv xQ6S7OE5XoPauqmeazOe4gi3O6oI7iUvWh+abwPyQaqBZFJRAMM3rojkcWy2PCqimtWC utmEhrAgTEVBi24OJ89C1IMATzbqTy4oYfVOPRgrQ0yDMPg0F7mUDgrJZUyKV9LKADGt F+CsR25X1T/P6F8lqaw0sEG96lzCvGBBatQvTFlI9pRI3NjXejhfq36n1dZjvFLPawpo Nce/FqoR6wm2hF9SJpb3YefazdivAV1rpVQSKSCodVdW9Lfc6Tlf1T0hSctJNEDC14TL r2yg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1782246859; x=1782851659; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=pY0rZjHV6S83wkkAtIiftfwbPM8z/tLQJDTAyMpckBI=; b=BXVHX6ht4915UIawQgV77s9OUzl2PKAelIyJFCB4iXhbOvc1Mkj6iBf+Lw0sE2HHA8 vjueJZGuyr3F+tyQ96nO6pK+K4xgno74d51QsEad1uRUn9yTAWepM+viboFy+VeW7YgI z99GokHtonYaDk8/kbqT0a8gG8udq+pqBtlFY6VjHnzsOy1fEowJdkwmXnJoIGH5hyiV u6QTseMznkZq3voUQI11O/61UHKfGjZhatjMnFMmQyssqumSXvYx5+ipIzjC3XV1Kn2g ZAf3CNCTTUc3mAulDPaQgl/C7nIeffa5qO41O5GmWQ4Zz5ff7UQxTTpekZOm+8WWFQdV h+xA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz2Y3cX/hGeATxtnHWC+b7BjiuIsonHQj7BGtejSDpso+lojQX3 kUyEL3EckZ+7ajzjhDubkM0gIKYgcW9g++HjzWasfSnMeIZJCEZoPPqt/lLy8/o4
X-Gm-Gg: AfdE7cmkShuAUlZpG8Xt9kKTeNgpsd76ocSZC2Br0Nzk2gM1pMDePEK9UZQ2moNZ/mZ eVdnF8J/t+9yQIPk5EP3+nd/rikmiI3SyRQNIYPBzWwOsww6pVSgYS1pmvRueynM7rgIq0f350A ytPNhbDpyMLVHMmA7h9mkHCHfi2ys8RPxpIcMOMNNo/3O5zMSP3M782Lg07MPGGwo9Ne+Q1LBEV ZNkgn3bx4trCqjbHlrpJzmk/eH6Dcebd4OBerrP4WPLIxbeR88PmysLbykuogHdjtyZHnpBhGRe LgcvWS0qnJjdDlx5e4MzcwvkFO5/HVaa8EIZ+965YLRUH1BRc0IpJyxqMIjvO13qPtnAKD/9eKd Ao65afl2++GVVyTnLo4Rybd8QvEjCwv7qFxKWhf69cFLTvbZ3v51R1Y1XuFOKBJPJcau7A3uNjb l4WmqJyfklua86aP5H7dWmvAbQN2oFx2cWt7hp1p0GWjf0RXtKyrBq+mrNLU0ZB442U0uu/rUSf TCGrJc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:7300:df0a:b0:304:997c:d43b with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-30c1dc93d31mr13565463eec.34.1782246858616; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:a100:1829:5956:ca53:df83:6568? ([2404:4400:a100:1829:5956:ca53:df83:6568]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5a478bee46e88-30c5af35cccsm6033934eec.30.2026.06.23.13.34.17 for <procon@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9a323ede-0ce8-40ee-a21a-5901604b5a2f@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 08:34:13 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: procon@ietf.org
References: <5FD76057-F3B5-4B71-950E-C3FE82312BA0@gmail.com> <MN2PR17MB403180DBBB50236AC7C51C4BCDEE2@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR17MB40315AE25CB509374D973FF4CDEE2@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR17MB40315AE25CB509374D973FF4CDEE2@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-ID-Hash: RYJL2V5WRCLETS7GLN5CTBEO2WAZ4S5I
X-Message-ID-Hash: RYJL2V5WRCLETS7GLN5CTBEO2WAZ4S5I
X-MailFrom: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [procon] Re: Should we call drafts "inactive" instead of "expired"?
List-Id: "Discussion of consolidating process documents and changes to the standards process per IETF 121 ALLDISPATCH." <procon.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/procon/jaDLJsfPiML0v3bgisou99y1mmQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/procon>
List-Help: <mailto:procon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:procon-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:procon@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:procon-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:procon-leave@ietf.org>

On 24-Jun-26 08:03, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Should we say drafts are “inactive” rather than “expired”? This seems wrong to me, as they are currently expired in our tooling, for example. If you feel strongly that we should make this change, please respond by the end of the month.

Well, it's the datatracker that introduced the use of "inactive" plus the ability to switch a draft between active and inactive. As a practical matter, that seems more fit for purpose than the rigid "6 months and you're gone" laid down by RFC 2026. But I have to admit, it's not clearly editorial to s/expired/inactive/.

    Brian

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status