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 <groachmail-stopspammin...@yahoo.com>
> 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](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6)
> ). 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).