Brian E Carpenter writes: > A good example of the possible confusion that such a move would > cause. RFC1725 was obsoleted by RFC1939, which is the current POP3 > standard (and has itself been updated by four other RFCs). That raises an interesting philosophical question, though. When A is obsoleted by B which is then updated by C and D, what *is* the actual status of A? It has always been my impression that, while A is effectively 'dead', it is still the foundation document for the series, and I think A's 'obsolete' status clearly indicates that. But to declare A as dead, to me, is a declaration that the entire series is also dead, and should be marked as such. But ulitmately, I just don't understand the recent fetish people have picked up for marking everything more than a decade old as 'historic'. Surely they have better things they can waste their, and our, time on. --lyndon -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
