"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote:
>
> Joe Touch wrote:
>
> > It is a paradox to begin one standard by selectively omitting
> > current standards (e.g., RFC1122).
>
> I believe that that is called "making progress". Cited
> from section 4.20 of RFC-1336:
> "I think three factors contribute to the success of the
> Internet:
> 1) public documentation of the protocols,
> 2) free (or cheap) software for the popular machines, and
> 3) vendor independence."
The unstated assumption of #1 is that there are protocols,
that they are designed carefully and conservatively to result
in a stable specification to code to.
Certainly protocols evolve and even are replaced. It's
more productive to replace a standard than ignore it, though.
> Thus, it is not "end-to-end-purity" or because the existence
> of any organization.
I asserted neither per se.
> Speaking of keeping standards, I am wondering why STD-2
> is still RFC-1700, although the current version is kept by
> IANA at http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm .
Very good question. I'll be glad to raise the issue with IANA;
at least 1700 and STD-2 should be obsoleted in their current form.
Joe
