Re: STD-2 is obsolete

[Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>]

"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote:
> 
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> > It is a paradox to begin one standard by selectively omitting
> > current standards (e.g., RFC1122).
> 
> I believe that that is called "making progress". Cited
> from section 4.20 of RFC-1336:
>   "I think three factors contribute to the success of the
>    Internet:
>    1) public documentation of the protocols,
>    2) free (or cheap) software for the popular machines, and
>    3) vendor independence."

The unstated assumption of #1 is that there are protocols,
that they are designed carefully and conservatively to result
in a stable specification to code to.

Certainly protocols evolve and even are replaced. It's
more productive to replace a standard than ignore it, though.

> Thus, it is not "end-to-end-purity" or because the existence
> of any organization.

I asserted neither per se. 

> Speaking of keeping standards, I am wondering why STD-2
> is still RFC-1700, although the current version is kept by
> IANA at http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm .

Very good question. I'll be glad to raise the issue with IANA;
at least 1700 and STD-2 should be obsoleted in their current form.

Joe