RE: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Eliot,

> 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.

John
 
> Eliot
> 
> john.loughney@xxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]