Re: I-D Renewal
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 06-Apr-26 08:45, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Carsten Bormann wrote on 05/04/2026 19:34:
>>>> That's the point, though. People frequently make these content-free updates manually to avoid expiry.
>>> Which is a bad idea.
>> I don’t know that.
>>
>> To me, a content-free update means that there are still authors who care, but nothing substantive happened.
>> That is useful information (and not necessarily a bad thing; a document may be stalling for administrative reasons).
Even without automatic "expiry", nothing stops an author from choosing to post an update if they want to send such a signal.
> without wanting to sound contrarian, I'm in favour of ID expiry in principal. The reason is that without expiry of some form, the IETF has no garbage disposal mechanism.
Yes we do; the tracker already supports an active/inactive state change. That's necessary and sufficient.
> The IETF should not go down the road of being an infinite garbage repository.
Actually, we do need to archive inactive drafts for several reasons, including IPR.
Let me repeat: this is one of the issues in draft-carpenter-gendispatch-anachronisms, which gendisptach has officially dispatched to the procon WG for future consideration.
Brian