Re: [Tools-discuss] Expiry Doctrine (Re: Expired draft on the w.g. status pages [was Re: disappearing IDs on www.ietf.org])

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 14 September 2020 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC27F3A0D81 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 ZF5GZr2b3Oe5 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0B33A0D73 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.146.131]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 08E9gLAo026128 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1600076555; x=1600162955; i=@elandsys.com; bh=f0cuxG4hHZfif5tJVmqmrdYYw2DKZBEJBLHEiEVOfsk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=IlLTZXwsWZDezSoq6at/Gs65QLRUhQy7r5NK6Ioiwai6VxPnyk6CDSmWgtDrpSj6k wRV/n/1+lsIJloLAaezhALC7SCrUXJMWRB7zygN60mI8T3MerMn1F9tzykYJ7GN4L7 Td2+0BHa/fP4SoonGvkC/7bFoi4KHPmNff0oKjeE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200914022841.08581ee8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:41:54 -0700
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <BCB7C223-EFDE-46D3-A4E2-82068C688547@tzi.org>
References: <8657.1599751932@localhost> <84c8d593-c7b6-4327-338f-9b2b0e7a36e0@levkowetz.com> <0C6D4DE2-F9F3-4C7C-8427-264F34C8C2B7@tzi.org> <26d795d2-3761-2950-4346-62f849d86eed@nostrum.com> <7792.1599768579@localhost> <C73D6AB9-694E-458E-AEEE-45DBDEF623C5@vigilsec.com> <3B281EED-CDCE-4025-8C78-7BA689490936@tzi.org> <5B0C691F-EA59-44E9-959F-52445CA58314@gmail.com> <41EEFFCD-DEB9-4950-95B1-F43ACC73CAF1@vigilsec.com> <2F82E43A-39CF-4C99-BE9E-CD84D2BE21B3@gmail.com> <C44C644D-C24A-4839-BB61-F758AA2D7BF1@vigilsec.com> <BCB7C223-EFDE-46D3-A4E2-82068C688547@tzi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/TWSRFBrqRssi12JV1Uvsz9sbHbw>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Expiry Doctrine (Re: Expired draft on the w.g. status pages [was Re: disappearing IDs on www.ietf.org])
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:42:56 -0000

Hi Carsten,
At 01:31 AM 12-09-2020, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>How do we represent the (desirable) aspects of 
>expiry without trying, unsuccessfully, to live the expiry doctrine?
>By making expiry (and replacement) a dynamic 
>*property* of a draft.  (Note that there is text 
>in each draft that describes the current value 
>of this property based on the current date — 
>this text is actually more likely untrue than 
>true, and this has caused all kinds of problems 
>with people taking the text at face 
>value.  Instead it should point to a resource 
>where the true current state can be ascertained.)

There was an IETF discussion about the expiration 
of I-Ds.  That led to a change where expired I-Ds 
were replaced with a "tombstone" file unless 
there is a newer version of the I-D.

>I cannot finish this note without noticing how 
>all this is not in the domain of the RFC editor 
>— we have kept the domain of authoring and progressing documents out of this

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy