Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG".
Too WG-centric, e.g., if draft-jaye-http-trust-state-mgt-01.txt has
expired (it has), and if the HTTP WG has shut down (it has), then no
interested party (using the above suggested definition of "validity")
can exist.
My definition is that 'validity' simply warns interested readers
of the limited conclusions one can reach about an I-D's
relevance to IETF activities once the I-D has passed the
magical 6 month marker. Since work is done in WGs, and I-Ds
foster work, then being WG-centric is a pragmatic definition
of 'validity'. And thus the definition doesn't have to speak to
the issue of whether other non-IETF interested parties exist.
cheers,
gja