Re: Need to preserve Internet Drafts

[Grenville Armitage]

Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
> > 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.

My definition is that 'validity' simply warns interested readers
of the limited conclusions one can reach about an I-D's
relevance to IETF activities once the I-D has passed the
magical 6 month marker. Since work is done in WGs, and I-Ds
foster work, then being WG-centric is a pragmatic definition
of 'validity'. And thus the definition doesn't have to speak to
the issue of whether other non-IETF interested parties exist.

cheers,
gja