Re: [newtrk] Re: Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

(ietf list deleted)

[e-mail] wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> 
>>Sure, but the logic is nevertheless a bit contorted - but rather than
>>debating what the current system *means* could be concentrate
>>on what we should do in future?
>>
>>Incidentally 3596 (a DS) obsoletes 3152 (a BCP). That's unusual,
>>but it isn't illogical. However, 3152 isn't shown as Obsolete
>>in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#BCPbyBCP.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>>Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>>>I would point out that it is historically useful to be able to track
>>>changes between draft and full or proposed and draft and we don't list
>>>status information in the RFCs...
> 
> 
> What I would like is that the RFC Index would accurately convey the current
> status of any RFC.  So, if I needed to check the status of a protocol which
> I am not intimately familiar with, I would not need to subscribe to a WG
> mailing list or ask an IESG/IAB/WG chair to interpret the RFC List for me.
> 
> Its past the new draft cut-off, but if the RFC Editor was willing & a Tools
> Team member was willing (& at least a few people thought it was useful) perhaps
> we (together) could mock-up an improved RFC Index.

Can't be done until this WG gets its act together about whether STD means
anything and whether a new PS really supersedes an ancient S. Example:

0822 Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages. D.
      Crocker. Aug-13-1982. (Format: TXT=109200 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0733)
      (Obsoleted by RFC2822) (Updated by RFC1123, RFC1138, RFC1148,
      RFC1327, RFC2156) (Also STD0011) (Status: STANDARD)

This is *accurate* and accurately reflects the confusion in our process.
It is simultaneously a Standard and obsoleted by a PS. Go figure :-)

     Brian


.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html