Hi John K, > >> 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. That seems like the most reasonable approach, to me - putting the 'former' tag, not having to jump through procedural hoops ... John L. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf