Brian,
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...
What I would like is that the RFC Index would accurately convey the current
status of any RFC. So, if I needed to check the status of a protocol which
I am not intimately familiar with, I would not need to subscribe to a WG
mailing list or ask an IESG/IAB/WG chair to interpret the RFC List for me.
Its past the new draft cut-off, but if the RFC Editor was willing & a Tools
Team member was willing (& at least a few people thought it was useful) perhaps
we (together) could mock-up an improved RFC Index.
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf