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
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
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
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
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
> > so
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. Harrens
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 u
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. Stahl,
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. Stah
--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
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 htt
John,
> > 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 ...'
I think his e
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 tech
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"
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
John,
The way I understand it, an RFC is only historic(al) if the technology it
defines is no longer in use.
An obsolete RFC means the technology is still being used, but some part of
the specification (obsolete RFC) has been updated. An obsolete RFC can
still be a standard as the RFC that obsol
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
bytes)
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:
18 matches
Mail list logo
