Humans tend to confuse Science and Engineering, including professional 
journalists: their mistake does not change the facts, but certainly confuses 
the weaker minds.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:49, Groach <> 

> On 12/02/2018 06:54, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>> A "standard" "obsoleted" by a "proposed standard" or a "draft standard" is 
>> nonsense. A standard is obsoleted by a new standard, not a draft or a 
>> proposal. RFC 821-822 are still the standard, until their obsoleting drafts 
>> and proposals become the new standard, and are clearly identified as such.
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
> As ever, though, whilst technically correct by definition, things are not so 
> black and white (humans tend to wander off the binary path that logic tends 
> to define and takes a short cut until a new path appears):
> Initially it was intended that most IETF technical specifications
>    would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with
>    Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard, then finally
>    to Internet Standard (see
> [Section 6 of RFC 2026](
> ).  For a number of
>    reasons this progression is not common.  Many Proposed Standards are
>    actually deployed on the Internet and used extensively, as stable
>    protocols.  This proves the point that the community often deems it
>    unnecessary to upgrade a specification to Internet Standard.  Actual
>    practice has been that full progression through the sequence of
>    standards levels is typically quite rare, and most popular IETF
>    protocols remain at Proposed Standard.
> (Not sure why you guys are still discussing RFCs, though, my definition of 
> Spam (as in the thread title) is what I choose to define it for my business 
> or personal likes - I dont need any RFC telling me what I find annoying or 
> unwanted or will be binned/filtered).

Reply via email to