Re: Labeling of standards: many proposed/draft standards are obsolete

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald at Alvestrand.no>]

At 14:55 12.09.99 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> One difficulty of correctly representing RFCs by status is that the RFC
> index is less than helpful in determining the status of an RFC. For
> example, obsoleted RFCs are still marked as a Proposed Standard (e.g.,
> RFC 1331) or even as a Draft Standard (RFC 1548). It would be helpful if
> rfc-index.txt and STD 1 were to agree on status, as rfc-index.txt is
> about the only non-manual way to generate listings of standards status,
> e.g., for citations.

That "obsoleted by" sticker is pretty obvious, when it's present.
If you think it's missing, drop a line to the RFC Editor.

A more severe problem is those Proposed RFCs whose technical content got 
split in 3 parts, 1 got to Draft, 1 recycled at Proposed, and 1 never got 
republished, so the old RFC is still the authority for it.....


> If a draft/proposed standard gets obsoleted, shouldn't it automatically
> become historic? Or do RFCs that have been replaced get to keep their
> medals like retired soldiers, with rfc-index.txt as their Memorial Day
> parade?

I like the history. But I've been doing it for too long to see the forest 
for the RFCs.

                 Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand at maxware.no