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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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there is a newer version of the I-D.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