On 1/28/2004 8:15 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Conclusions, all mine:
- Documenting current procedures is good. - We won't expire tombstones.
They're not a big enough problem yet. - We'll think about naming
tombstones something else than the exact draft name (for instance
draft-whatever-version-nn-expired.txt???) - We'll note the issue of
referencing names without the version number as input for thinking
about overhauling the whole I-D system. But that won't happen very
quickly - it "mostly works".
Seems to make sense?
How about using the draft name without a version number as placeholder?
That placeholder file can either reference the current version, or it can
contain the tombstone text. For example, draft-whatever.txt can either
contain a pointer to draft-whatever-nn.txt or can contain text that the
last version of that I-D was -nn but has since expired.
That eliminates naming collisions, allows for mirroring based on the
filedate alone, and provides a running reference to the latest version
which can either be fetched directly (if active) or can be retrieved from
an archival system (if expired). Other useful information could also be
provided in the placeholder, such as referencing the I-D's current
progress through the channels, referencing any RFC which may have been
published, and so forth.
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/