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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA05312D9EE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.427
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cMLsA-DXT39a for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 728E412D7E8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4PK8q0t011504 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:08:53 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1464206933; bh=ahisYVi8iBNKHL5NQfiueZGkk5pi06Ob6D67oNG3Fm8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Reply-To; b=ffxYCcsxk5JbOm2RvuHpPREmJLBvcdLQDp0LdwP300dIhHEq91h+//HYTyh0tqFln +W5urlkjORZ1zxKqtpDXqsGss0NexIftbR+HknqzsfGWfUr1XsIVKuuMQD9CsE1VPY kmjf1QKqFAelowlblZL6m7DwubgVkeB/p7UxpqaQ=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:08:53 +0000
Message-Id: <em4eddc16c-e509-4839-8934-dd743f351469@helsinki>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.24928.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MBF38684CC-E36E-4B63-A3E6-8D06849DA21B"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (dublin.packetizer.com []); Wed, 25 May 2016 16:08:53 -0400 (EDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/8DDNvyXeqNX4REjoSGIdxioDcHE>
Subject: [apps-discuss] RFC 1738 is made obsolete by what?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:08:57 -0000


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?