Brian, > Sure, but the logic is nevertheless a bit contorted - but rather than > debating what the current system *means* could be concentrate > on what we should do in future? > > Incidentally 3596 (a DS) obsoletes 3152 (a BCP). That's unusual, > but it isn't illogical. However, 3152 isn't shown as Obsolete > in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#BCPbyBCP. > > Brian > > Eliot Lear wrote: > > 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...
What I would like is that the RFC Index would accurately convey the current status of any RFC. So, if I needed to check the status of a protocol which I am not intimately familiar with, I would not need to subscribe to a WG mailing list or ask an IESG/IAB/WG chair to interpret the RFC List for me. Its past the new draft cut-off, but if the RFC Editor was willing & a Tools Team member was willing (& at least a few people thought it was useful) perhaps we (together) could mock-up an improved RFC Index. John _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
