- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 16:58:14 +0900
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <rees@mumble.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hello Noah, I didn't check what the original action name is for this, but I think this should be ACTION-687: references to expired Internet Drafts, etc. Internet Drafts expire after 6 months. RFCs never expire. RFCs may be declared 'obsolete' or 'historical', but that's a different issue. In the obsolete case, there's an other RFC (or a few) that superseed it. In the 'historical' case, one has to assume that the technology is indeed no longer really relevant, or at least that no new stuff is produced that adheres to that spec. Regards, Martin. On 2012/05/02 7:29, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > Jonathan: > > Assuming the draft minutes of last week's call [1] quote you correctly, > you asked for more discussion of my: > > ACTION-687: on - Noah Mendelsohn - Look for opportunities to discuss > putting forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed > reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope > creep etc. - Due: 2012-05-01 - OPEN > > ...and I indicated we should try to make progress in e-mail. Please > consult the record of discussion up to this point, and let me know how > you'd like to proceed. Thank you very much. > > Noah > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 07:58:55 UTC