> I would suggest only "possibly of current interest to an IETF WG". Too WG-centric, e.g., if draft-jaye-http-trust-state-mgt-01.txt has expired (it has), and if the HTTP WG has shut down (it has), then no interested party (using the above suggested definition of "validity") can exist. Mind, it (and some others) were WG I-Ds at some prior time. An individual I-D may expire into static dustfullness, or into IRTF work, or into a non-WG RFC publication. I'm not sure I covered all of the WG-avoidant alternatives, but WGs aren't the only (or best) metric of utility, validity, or even humor. Cheers, Eric P.S. This document was deleted on March 20, 2000.
- Need to preserve Internet Drafts Brijesh Kumar
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Bill Manning
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Grenville Armitage
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Bill Manning
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Bill Manning
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Vernon Schryver
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Grenville Armitage
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Valdis . Kletnieks
- RE: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Kathy Wisenbaker
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Grenville Armitage
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Grenville Armitage
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Betsy Brennan
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Grenville Armitage
- Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts Eric Brunner-Williams