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

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:55:46 -0400

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.

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?

This would seem to be in line with RFC 2026:

   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
   specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
   assigned to the "Historic" level.

A bit of local housekeeping might make it more convincing when
castigating reporters and others...
-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: Julio César Serrano Ortuno <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:19:49 +0200

I see the problems derivated of having RFCs archived. The same problems
occurs with many copies distributed by the world on several web pages
and FTP sites.

One of many possibles solutions:
    - Reserve a new standard UDP port to obtain the RFCs classification
(same as with DNS 53/udp, given a domain name returns IP, this port with
RFC number returns RFC labeling).
    - Now, in addition every RFC doc. a Java applet that connects to UDP
port, reserved last point, at any "RFC authority center". The applet
knows the RFC number and obtains the RFC classification.
    - If no connection available, the applet returns the old RFC
classification with a label "No certification available".

Disadvantages:
    - This RFC model requires HTML navigators.
    - RFC doc less compact.
    - Need control to avoid net trafic on "RFC Authority Center"

    Julio César Serrano Ortuno <[email-masked]>

---

From: Julio César Serrano Ortuno <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:19:49 +0200

Disadvantages: