Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:03 AM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
wrote:

> I think it's been a mistake to allow specification required to be met with
> expired drafts.
>

Why does it matter if they are expired? They will expire soon enough,
modulo https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry/

-Ekr

> If the code point is adopted and the draft can no longer change, it's a
> bit of an end run on the process. (Citation as something other than work in
> progress, because work can no longer progress).
>

> I've started adding guidance to DEs directing them not to accept expired
> internet drafts because of this, and to remove entries for expired
> drafts... But that only works for new registries moving forward... And to
> be clear, I think it's still up to DE to decide if an expired ID is allowed
> in a specification required registry.
>
> OS
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, 8:54 AM Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25.03.2024 14:46, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> > [Citation needed].
>>
>> No.  No citation needed because it happens during the development
>> process of a draft all the time, and you should know this because you've
>> written enough code to drafts.  The point is, you don't know when a
>> draft is "finished".  The benefit of an RFC or something similar is that
>> it is a signal that indeed the spec won't change.  We make an exception
>> for early allocation for those drafts we know are going to become RFCs.
>> Drafts are NOT the droids you're looking for.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> saag mailing list
>> saag@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>>
>