Hi John K,
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.
If, as a community, we cared, we could easily have both the
tracking information and the status by introducing the
little-known term "former", as in "Obsolete, former Draft
Standard".
Of course, how many procedural hoops we'd have to jump through
to get there is another issue.
That seems like the most reasonable approach, to me - putting the
'former' tag, not having to jump through procedural hoops ...
John L.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf