Subject: Related Active Documents

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:08:23 +0200

Hi,

on the radext status pages, I see amonst others the following drafts as
"related active":

draft-congdon-radext-ieee802-03			2005-02-18
draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-client-mib-03 	2005-02-18
draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-server-mib-03 	2005-02-18
draft-salowey-radext-delegated-prefix-01 	2005-10-24

All of which expired some 9 years ago, and are not in a replaced-by
relationship.

Does anyone know what exactly makes a draft "active" in the status page
context? And can/should I make them go away?

(Funny enough, the congdon one *may* be the great-grandfather of a
current I-D, and should be a replaced-by maybe. But I am too young to
remember the roots of the IEEE802 draft :-) )

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:47:08 +0200

Hi Stefan,
> draft-congdon-radext-ieee802-03			2005-02-18
Isn't draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-12 ?
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext/>
> draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-client-mib-03 	2005-02-18
RFC 4672 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4672/>
/(was draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib)/
> draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-server-mib-03 	2005-02-18
RFC 4673 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4673/>
/(was draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib)

Regards, Benoit
/

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:51:41 +0000

Draft-alowey is actually rfc4818Š :-) So that one at least should be
removed.

Cheers,
Wojciech.

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:52:00 -0500

To make sure, you're talking about what you see at

tools.ietf.org/wg/radext
not
datatracker.ietf.org/wg/radext

correct?

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:25:26 +0200

Hi,

> datatracker.ietf.org/wg/radext

Yes, that's correct.

My point was that I didn't think these drafts are particularly "active"
so why would they appear on the tools page - but never mind, with the
hints so far I inserted "Replaces" statements on the later wg versions
and I guess that should make the historic drafts go away in a few minutes.

Thanks!

Greetings,

Stefan

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473