--On Wednesday, 18 December, 2024 12:48 +1100 Martin Thomson <mt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, at 12:23, John C Klensin wrote: >> The solution there >> might be a new category of "Obsolete", to join Proposed >> Standard, Internet Standard, and BCP. > > Seems reasonable to me. It's usually a mistake in designing > computer systems to conflate axes of state, but I can't see > why that would be a problem in this case. On the contrary, it > avoids confusion. > > For RFC 793, datatracker currently says: > > Document type > RFC - Internet Standard > > You have to read the fine print to see that it is obsolete. > That's not a great presentation. And, if one follows various other bits of advice and looks at rfc-index.txt, one finds: 0793 Transmission Control Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981. (Format: TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC0761) (Obsoleted by RFC9293) (Updated by RFC1122, RFC3168, RFC6093, RFC6528) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) Which is _really_ confusing unless one is an IETF insider who understands our rather odd conventions > (This is something the old tools.ietf.org presentation got > right. It's unfortunate that it got lost amidst the host of > other improvements.) Yep. best, john -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
