Fred Baker wrote:
At 09:56 AM 1/14/2004, James M Galvin wrote:
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.
I'm not sure it is backwards. If it is deemed to solve a problem (not
obvious to me), it creates another.
I'd be happier bumping the number any time the file is changed, so
that the tombstone supercedes the removed file and a subsequent
posting supercedes the tombstone.
I am very concerned about the accumulation of tombstones forever,
though. If we don't want to accumulate draft versions forever, what
makes tombstones different? I would far rather age them out after some
interval, such as six months.
IMHO, if tombstones get removed after 6 months, the search interface on
ietf.org should still be able to report that the document with a given
name existed but expired.
I've been several times in a position when I had to search for a draft
that has expired more than 6 months ago.
Alexey
__________________________________________
Isode Limited, http://www.isode.com
IETF standard related pages:
http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/Links.html
Personal Home Page: http://www.melnikov.ca
__________________________________________