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 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
