Re: I-D Renewal
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 06-Apr-26 09:55, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > ... 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 difference is that the current mechanism requires authors to be pro-active to maintain a document as current while the proposed system requires others (WG chairs, presumably) to take action to flush things away.
That depends on exactly how we define things for the future. For example, for non-WG documents, why not allow the authors to flip the active/inactive bit?
But I'd rather save the debate for procon, at some future stage.
Brian