On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
I wonder what thoughts people have about this paragraph, though:
At 07:52 AM 1/14/2004, The IETF Secretariat wrote:
>When an Internet-Draft expires, a "tombstone" file will be created
>that includes the filename and version number of the Internet-Draft
>that has expired. The filename of the tombstone file will be the
>same as that of the expired Internet-Draft with the version number
>increased by one. If a revised version of an expired
>Internet-Draft is submitted for posting, then the revised version
>will replace the tombstone file and will receive the same version
>number as that previously assigned to the tombstone file.
This surprises me. I would expect them to increment the version number
for the revised version. At a minimum it is logically the right thing
to do because the information in the file is changing, i.e., it is not
the same file.
I am particularly surpised because it was more than 10 years that
incrementing the version number for the tombstone file started. The
Secretariat didn't do that originally.
This was back before mirroring of the I-D directory was as popular as it
is today. I was creating a mirror at my then employer and really wanted
to track the tombstone file, for consistency. It is the same problem
you're having now although perhaps the content this time is more
valuable.
I had several conversations with Steve Coya about it back then and
pushed very hard to get that version number incremented for the
tombstone file. It would be silly (if not shameful) to take a step
backwards now.
Jim