On Thu January 27 2005 13:45, Dave Crocker wrote:
Std 10 is RFC821. Note that it is explicitly obsoleted by RFC2821. (The STD
reference is, therefore, out of sync. But that's OK, since the historical
reference is useful.)
The STD reference to RFC 821 is correct. RFC 821 is a full Standard,
whereas RFC 2821 is at the entry level of the Standards Track;
Proposed Standard. The "obsoletes" indication in the heading of
RFC 2821 and in the rfc-index is somewhat misleading. Some
successor of RFC 2821 -- if that ever happens (RFC 2026 requires
review after 24 months, which would have been April 2003, and
each 12 months thereafter) -- might achieve Draft Standard
status, and some successor to that Draft Standard might reach
full Standard level. The latter document would succeed RFC 821
as STD 10.
One might suppose that the 24+12-month review of viability of
the standardization effort might have resulted in advance
through Draft status to full Standard nearly a year ago -- if
this mailing list really were "the most active, long-standing
venue for discussing email architecture" as claimed in the
draft under discussion. I suspect, however, that there is an
inconsistency in IETF procedures; viz. when a WG develops a
Proposed Standard as part of its charter, the WG is usually
disbanded (rather than simply going dormant as provided for in
RFC 2418), leaving nobody to perform the actual work of
advancing the document along the Standards Track.