Bill Manning wrote:
>
> % Bill Manning wrote:
> % [..from boilerplate..]
> % > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
> % > may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
> %
> % [..comment...]
> % > What constitutes "validity"?
> %
> % I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG".
> %
> % cheers,
> % gja
>
> And if it becomes of "current interest to an IETF WG" after the
> six month window? Or if it is of interest to a non IETF WG, e.g.
> a legally oriented person doing IPR work? Can the IETF make
> "non-valid" collections of drafts available for prior art searches
> as an IETF function, esp. given the language in the boilerplate?
I dont see the definition of 'valid' as being binding on anyone
to *not* be interested in the document after 6 months, only that
no-one should *presume* the IETF cares about the I-D if it is more
than 6 months old. If in addition you've revoked the IETF's right to
copy your I-D's words after 6 months, any WG newly interested in your
old work simply has to find a different set of words to express those
ideas.
cheers,
gja
