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

[William Allen Simpson <wsimpson at greendragon.com>]

The pointers to RFC 1331 and 1548 have long been in error.  I sent
a note about it to Postel several times, but he never got around to
fixing it.  In the old days, things would advance in the list, from
Proposed to Draft to Final, and they'd have an asterisk next to them
indicating the change.  The bookkeeping got a little sloppy as IETF
got too large.

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.
> 
>...
> 
> A bit of local housekeeping might make it more convincing when
> castigating reporters and others...

WSimpson at UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32