Re: Related Active Documents

[Stefan Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> To make sure, you're talking about what you see at
> 
> tools.ietf.org/wg/radext
> not
> datatracker.ietf.org/wg/radext
> 
> correct?

Yes, that's correct.

My point was that I didn't think these drafts are particularly "active"
so why would they appear on the tools page - but never mind, with the
hints so far I inserted "Replaces" statements on the later wg versions
and I guess that should make the historic drafts go away in a few minutes.

Thanks!

Greetings,

Stefan

> 
> On 7/11/14, 10:08 AM, Stefan Winter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> on the radext status pages, I see amonst others the following drafts as
>> "related active":
>>
>> draft-congdon-radext-ieee802-03            2005-02-18
>> draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-client-mib-03     2005-02-18
>> draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-server-mib-03     2005-02-18
>> draft-salowey-radext-delegated-prefix-01     2005-10-24
>>
>> All of which expired some 9 years ago, and are not in a replaced-by
>> relationship.
>>
>> Does anyone know what exactly makes a draft "active" in the status page
>> context? And can/should I make them go away?
>>
>> (Funny enough, the congdon one *may* be the great-grandfather of a
>> current I-D, and should be a replaced-by maybe. But I am too young to
>> remember the roots of the IEEE802 draft :-) )
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Stefan Winter
>>
> 


-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66