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
Yes, this seems pretty close to the IETF DPW. Unfortunately, the draft
has expired (I saw the report on the experiment, but even that seems
rather preliminary, in that no actual action to HISTORIC has been
taken). Is there a plan to act on the recommendation of
draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00 in
On Tue July 12 2005 02:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
I would assume historical reference.
On 7/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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:
On 11-jul-2005, at 8:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
...or BCP:
3152 Delegation of IP6.ARPA. R. Bush. August 2001. (Format: TXT=5727
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 11:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
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
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...
Eliot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if someone could help me out on this one. I was doing a bit
of
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
Nick,
The way I understand it, an RFC is only historic(al) if the technology it
defines is no longer in use.
Well, as Iljitsch mail pointed out, some things (3152 Delegation of IP6.ARPA)
are moved to Historic when the IETF wants people to stop using them ...'
An obsolete RFC means the
What is the reason for continuing to list something obsolete as a
Draft Standard?
Ummm, because most people don't notice standards maturity levels?
But the idea of an obsolete Best CURRENT Practice makes MY head
hurt...
Spencer
___
Ietf
On Mon July 11 2005 02:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
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
--On Monday, 11 July, 2005 13:12 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
At 9:54 AM +0300 7/11/05, [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,
No, lack of action by the community to request moving documents to
Historic.
There seem to be a number of these housekeeping tasks that have almost
no benefit to the individual, have increasing costs and ever longer-term
commitments and thus, not surprisingly, don't get done on a regular
Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Mon July 11 2005 02:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
At 09:54 AM 7/11/2005 +0300, [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.
On 11-jul-2005, at 12:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The way I understand it, an RFC is only historic(al) if the
technology it
defines is no longer in use.
Well, as Iljitsch mail pointed out, some things (3152 Delegation of
IP6.ARPA)
are moved to Historic when the IETF wants people to stop
On Monday, July 11, 2005 09:54:14 AM +0300 [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.
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
Henning,
No, lack of action by the community to request moving documents to
Historic.
There seem to be a number of these housekeeping tasks that have almost
no benefit to the individual, have increasing costs and ever longer-term
commitments and thus, not surprisingly, don't get done
Ted,
I've assumed that it was to tell you it was at Draft Standard when the
document
that replaced it was issued. That way you can tell whether the new doc is
a recycle-in-grade, an update to get something to the next step, or a
downgrade.
The real meat of the data here, though, is that
Brian,
What is the reason for continuing to list something
obsolete as a Draft Standard?
Lack of action by the IESG.
No, lack of action by the community to request moving
documents to Historic.
Section 6.2 of 2026 does say the following:
When a standards-track
Bob,
A question for you:
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
