--On Monday, 11 July, 2005 13:12 +0300 john.loughney@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > 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. 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. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf