OK Jordi, you fell victim to a marketing site.
I've got some news for you: Not every site on the Web has accurate information.
Let me explain how that works. Something new comes along (say, a new train
service) and marketing material (a web site) is generated. Some budget is set
aside. The web site looks nice and flashy and correctly describes the state at
the time the budget was there.
The service turns out to be less successful than anticipated. Some changes are
made. The website is not updated (out of lack of budget; out of shame; I don't
know). The train personnel even knows that but probably thought: not a big
problem, that's just a marketing site. Those who really need to know will go
to the operator.
An IETF analogy would be IPv6 and security: When IPv6 was first marketed, its
"mandatory security" was an important (the only at the time) selling point.
Lots of marketing of this feature, which made it turn into the incorrect
marketing statement "IPv6 more secure". IPv6 turns out to be less successful
than planned and a lot of that security is never deployed. Still, after more
than 10 years and a lot of IPv4 IPsec deploument, most IPv6 marketing sites
sell "IPv6 more secure". This kind outdated information is hard to get rid of.
Not a problem, because those who really need to know will talk to experts.
Should the host site have vetted the information on the marketing site before
linking to it? Probably. On the other hand, the site does contain useful
information. Still, it is quite obvious that this is not an operator site so
nobody in their right mind would be relying on the letter of it for current
The ugly part of this conversation is that you map this little failure of the
hosts and then your big failure to properly vet information on the web to a
failure of the site selection process or the IAOC. No, that's not it.
General recommendation on the latter point: less drama, please.
Ietf mailing list