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> wrote: > 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): > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127#page-2 > > 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).
