Re: [rfc-i] What obsoletes what?

Brian,

1575 is a DS, and 1574 and 1575 were a bundle (they could have been written
as one RFC), so I don't see the issue there.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 9:24 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> A few days ago I wanted to find out if there are precedents for an
> Informational RFC obsoleting a standards track RFC.
>
> TL;DR: RFC 6248 obsoleted a BCP (RFC 4148), and RFC1574 and RFC1575 *both*
> obsoleted a PS (RFC 1139).
>
> In the course of discovering this, I wrote a bit of code to extract the
> data from the RFC index, and here's a summary if anyone is interested.
>
> The index contains 1330 obsoleted RFCs.
>
> In 741 cases, the obsoleting RFC has the same status as the obsoleted RFC.
>
> For the others, here are the details. For example, there are 13 Internet
> Standard documents that obsoleted an RFC of status Unknown. (The diagonal
> is intentionally zero.)
>
>      UNK HIS PS  DS  IS  BCP EXP INF   <-- new status
> UNK 000 011 007 007 013 000 002 003
> HIS 001 000 019 000 002 003 001 027
> PS  000 006 000 100 028 003 000 001
> DS  000 001 010 000 035 000 000 000
> IS  000 000 002 001 000 000 000 000
> BCP 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001
> EXP 000 007 061 001 000 002 000 006
> INF 000 004 032 001 001 018 000 000
> |
> |___old status
>
>
> The code is at https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/obsol.py
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>