Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic

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

 



At 09:54 AM 7/11/2005 +0300, 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?


Because Jon Postel always did it that way? Seriously, the idea is that the document was a Draft Standard when it was published. You can obsolete it, but you cannot
change its publication status.  Should its status change to Historic when it is
obsoleted? Maybe, although we have never done it that way (and we do have 20+
years of history).

(Note that in fact the RFC Editor added "publication status" to its index
        database last year; the new field is included in rfc-index.xml.  This
        shows the status upon publication, in cases where the status is
        changed later.)

There are quite a few twisty little passages lurking here, and they mostly stem from
a basic semantic confusion between a document (RFC) number and the protocol
that is specified in that document (or maybe not).  The RFC number is in fact a
document number, but we have chosen to overload it as a protocol designator.
We say "RFC 793" or "TCP" more or less interchangeably, but 793 is really
only a document.

In my view, a result of the ISD proposal in newtrk should be to cleanly remove this semantic overloading of RFC numbers. An ISD would define a protocol independent of
a document identifier (RFC number).  I believe that we should move with all
deliberate speed to engineer an ISD-based system for IETF standards, rather than
to make small patches to RFC designations.

Bob Braden



John

_______________________________________________

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]