Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
So we add "and/or IESG" to the list ...
Um, they don't have a monopoly on omnicience, to approxi-quote Fred, and
cannot be an exhaustive remedy for WG and I-ID expiry.
We are clearly talking cross purposes. The question of a 'valid'
I-D was posed in the context of enforced expiration after 6 months.
Clearly 'valid' is related to the meaning of 'not yet expired'
and therefore is related to whether any ongoing work in the IETF
(which I suggest happens in WGs or the IESG, regardless of the
limitations of either fora) is still using (and revising) said I-D.
When the IETF ceases to utilize a particular I-D it drifts off
agendas, isn't revised, and falls into the expired (and hence not-valid)
state. Which brings me back to my original, limited definition of
what it means for an I-D to be 'valid'. Omniscience on the part
of anyone is not required.
cheers,
gja