Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 1738 is made obsolete by what?

Matthew Kerwin <> Wed, 25 May 2016 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2EB12D109 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.198, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXOYvl5lUsM1 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD1012DD88 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fh2so36049564igd.1 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=LW8q6xS0miMvfmy7tNHHHf2z63Q2aLGFssI5Z/tYA2o=; b=iaku4tYx1IVYSgihJWXR+Ld2yxkKFHt8w77a1EciYaEwjNrT+iquVrZgkEZV2GcAzi zUxBBq7HB6QLRg6CNzUaXVdUMoZx2JlLOOXotwyObgGZrrZEhsD9OauigNMt3JqhUlKZ ons+bOxyEFVqNnga0gOo6Hxwr4NG6HetSH/i5Xib2+qEQwcoGRTE6xa8xoG8Yec4ZGO/ D4mTxOWPXxIK+CWo4/rcGTEnX5w9qxI62huhdcgpNi0aqlbWqXpk3cY6dyaWQi1Z9vzm 1d2tjWxrDhcsgqVtAsk8yAVxcyD3NcJ+yOngFp8dDrBAucIfN/4DvUM3tUxlV/TC7H/O fmbQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=LW8q6xS0miMvfmy7tNHHHf2z63Q2aLGFssI5Z/tYA2o=; b=K65dt30U1e2idUfRkF76EouowiXtld7erVFKuCjnWjelLQUIC5oNe+yYiAX3PYg+vM jnP2A7HwFlMIdBGqM/tyBP/drYzkRl5c+CrW7pFfIg5vLcYGrd+SLiMB51NtdotQk0MM sG6HhYRKbxmplMe1wjOHiys5UQizckBRcuJrvhGsCCpZE20MDc8N8IwJ7MBGfVkvo1FC IQ6FNm4NSzx//zI0QxBnMR4JEiH+Qk8zdBoSJLHZ0280xpGOJNGiEVgJ5sFZpUw7k/+E lx0CqSIDcKlq/dvmbCcJBqWKS+0NwBCLHArXdmOzT1dVdmzBcqVvZzG2fAez/HXOLH9m jxbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIEQzv5RBFYASKfsfbHci9OcaUPKogLORL8ciG34aZmjIGpw0VI75gwFTFuXFQApK426RIWGsd3x+vAlw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id g7mr43835igh.50.1464210983024; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <em4eddc16c-e509-4839-8934-dd743f351469@helsinki>
References: <em4eddc16c-e509-4839-8934-dd743f351469@helsinki>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 07:16:22 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: DtxM8TeZ0EAxFWHvSZ3YspsOB2Y
Message-ID: <>
From: Matthew Kerwin <>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd758cc8523020533b12fda
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 1738 is made obsolete by what?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:16:28 -0000

On 26 May 2016 at 06:08, Paul E. Jones <> wrote:

> Folks,
> RFC 1738 has been made obsolete, but the data that the RFC editor is
> provided (and as shown on tools) is that this document was made obsolete by
> the telnet and gopher URL schemes.  Surely that wasn't the message that was
> intended to be conveyed.  See:
> Wouldn't it be correct to say that this was made obsolete by 2396, which
> was then made obsolete by 3986?
> If I'm correct, then I think the "Obsoleted By" information is
> misleading.  If I'm wrong, then I'm entirely confused and I still assert
> that it's misleading :-)
> Is there a process to clarify this?
> Paul
​It'd be good to find this out. I have in my archives a brief discussion we
had on 2013-06-26 about this very issue. It was never resolved cleanly, and
so we find ourselves here today with my file: draft which says it obsoletes
an already obsolete RFC even though it only replaces one sub-section
thereof (§3.10, about half a page of RFC 1738) -- like telnet and gopher.

I wouldn't be surprised if this piece of metadata ends up being a bit of a
blocker, so it'd be good to get it straightened up.

  Matthew Kerwin