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

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 23 September 2020 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CF43A0B51 for <>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cTuzp_XbeQPL for <>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F633A0B50 for <>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id mm21so2456324pjb.4 for <>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4rUNhwM1maKoF5169XBODTzvKSwoHVxvdJqTp04GrE4=; b=M0U25wnp2ExAY9sd/cZlt25NfcMjyUMJO5q+cjeTbg/gGmpyYOB/TGRkzb26yavEqc wa9DYbRDzPB0H/8BLPHV/ZTryLg8Q8iN6FQSXYVvMlxFvcQYuL674KmfBSV8pgvNLJPH SMEq4531NMq0pGz4M0bmmE5JCjOKLpqUKmS1iTRFzA71KseAjv7D2/7yu65L7sKyu0cE ZCZZmTYd4WSU/AZfOtn48YsO6p9oonawBgBWb16FSbHhslplIWPiMwcqKc+Iv/kX/X0R mAg142HdU3dbL3mNpmKFKkuP3y7C4a3jjfyGTN+W1HwRUHbSCbgrKNicRx9lxgrZqCyK 8Mzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4rUNhwM1maKoF5169XBODTzvKSwoHVxvdJqTp04GrE4=; b=mLNbfLQqhFX0VqOcgO7yIRZiz8NIDsptg32D9WdaSMXmk2FVonrj1ZKRYCEdzYZLXF KDfrKpm8a7BbvTkqllyeux3o3M6ym+HxzzYWEn/+YsA7Mk784WzF8iiolKK0Kr/h1rTf XoJjBTGPJ5JwsSQyslLJaZcU3MBzu51EDcksiiSiVwqGp+dQ44/H8WDPxcFe5EBLUL+4 ct2YWkjutGuGT7QrebRGs1+lJ1UX+sCjWbbk7SThIS0Rg5s+WwvjegJ2ZJN42iAhhTRq q6397WLY1jFqQEqqh+TFlqTpj7tnnnmM9voWsrk6sJUviEoRkmfGfgl/lIGx7SkdxA+S ud4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533L0MmGg/p5vI+PNRI6fNLUKlQ9yaPLNS0tvmk87uPcKpaV4zOa GBArLTc/4YjEnLYPPAPs+3s2koBEHFU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzM7bc/Reg3pYST7A9OUAi8ZpyM7dioK1RH6Rf3RlnP8iSAqpN4D3pd/H0l+YPAZKIGjfB2VQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d315:: with SMTP id p21mr1506452pju.88.1600829996657; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id il14sm3275761pjb.54.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>, Carsten Bormann <>
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 14:59:52 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Expiry Doctrine (Re: Expired draft on the w.g. status pages [was Re: disappearing IDs on])
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 02:59:59 -0000

On 23-Sep-20 14:36, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Carsten Bormann <> writes:
>> This is a nice example of "process confabulation", designing software
>> for what SHOULD happen, not for what actually DOES (and NEEDS TO)
>> happen.
> It also comes from confusing the position and role of a draft within the
> IETF standards process with the position and role of a version of a
> draft within the entire sphere of IETF-related technical activies.
> Within the standards process, a draft that hasn't been updated within
> six months may as well not exist, to do anything with it a new version
> must be submitted; within what I might call "reality", every version of
> every draft has value forever.

Why not write a short BCP to update RFC2026 to reflect that reality?
Then there might be a chance of the tools catching up.

What we have learned over a number of years is that drafts have archival
value and may be of interest years after they were written; and this can
apply to all versions, not just the most recent version. That's
inconsistent with the rules, so we should change the rules.