Eliot,
I would point out that it is historically useful to be able to track
changes between draft and full or proposed and draft and we don't list
status information in the RFCs...
I agree with that.
And, my head still hurts thinking about why we'd leave something as a
"Proposed Standard" when its been obsoleted. Seems more like an "Obsolete
Standard" ... but perhaps I am just nit-picking.
John
Eliot
john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if someone could help me out on this one.
I was doing a bit
of analysis on the current RFC list, and noticed that some
Draft Standard
documents are obsoleted. For example:
954 NICNAME/WHOIS. K. Harrenstien, M.K. Stahl, E.J. Feinler.
Oct-01-1985. (Format: TXT=7397 bytes) (Obsoletes
RFC0812) (Obsoleted
by RFC3912) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
This really made me scratch my head. One would imagine if a
protocol is obsoleted
by another, it would not be listed as a Draft Standard any longer.
What is the reason for continuing to list something
obsolete as a Draft Standard?
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf