On 12/02/2018 06:54, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
A "standard" "obsoleted" by a "proposed standard" or a "draft
standard" is nonsense. A standard is obsoleted by a new standard, not
a draft or a proposal. RFC 821-822 are still the standard, until their
obsoleting drafts and proposals become the new standard, and
are clearly identified as such.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
As ever, though, whilst technically correct by definition, things are
not so black and white (humans tend to wander off the binary path that
logic tends to define and takes a short cut until a new path appears):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127#page-2
Initially it was intended that most IETF technical specifications
would progress through a series of maturity stages starting with
Proposed Standard, then progressing to Draft Standard, then finally
to Internet Standard (seeSection 6 of RFC 2026
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6>). For a number of
reasons this progression is not common. Many Proposed Standards are
actually deployed on the Internet and used extensively, as stable
protocols. This proves the point that the community often deems it
unnecessary to upgrade a specification to Internet Standard. Actual
practice has been that full progression through the sequence of
standards levels is typically quite rare, and most popular IETF
protocols remain at Proposed Standard.
(Not sure why you guys are still discussing RFCs, though, my definition
of Spam (as in the thread title) is what I choose to define it for my
business or personal likes - I dont need any RFC telling me what I find
annoying or unwanted or will be binned/filtered).
