Sure, but the logic is nevertheless a bit contorted - but rather than
debating what the current system *means* could be concentrate
on what we should do in future?
Incidentally 3596 (a DS) obsoletes 3152 (a BCP). That's unusual,
but it isn't illogical. However, 3152 isn't shown as Obsolete
in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#BCPbyBCP.
Brian
Eliot Lear wrote:
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...
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
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf