remove InferenceModel section from EPP protocol

[nirrozenbaum]

InferenceModel no longer exists. this section is no longer relevant

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for gateway-api-inference-extension ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	32592e6
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/gateway-api-inference-extension/deploys/68a19c8adb4aaf0008e1afb1
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1389--gateway-api-inference-extension.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: nirrozenbaum

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [nirrozenbaum]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ahg-g]

/lgtm

[kfswain]

Should we consider instead marking the status as Obsolete? I'm wondering if we want to leave the proposals mostly untouched to somewhat be able to track the past decisions we made. I'm not feeling strongly one way or another, but that keeps us from having to keep old proposals up-to-date

[nirrozenbaum]

Should we consider instead marking the status as Obsolete? I'm wondering if we want to leave the proposals mostly untouched to somewhat be able to track the past decisions we made. I'm not feeling strongly one way or another, but that keeps us from having to keep old proposals up-to-date

my intuition is that keeping obsolete information here can lead to a big file with obsolete sections that take the focus from the main points of the protocol and makes it hard for a reader to understand what the protocol is.

but I think you're touching a good point - I treated this doc as the place where we hold the most up to date EPP protocol.
that is not true for other proposals, cause most of the proposals result in code.

we do have PR #1360 that should somewhat keep history (executive summary history, only title of a change).
and we always have the history in github.
I think that should be enough at this point, but not feeling strongly one way or another.
feel free to spin up a new issue if you think we should address this comment.