Re: RFC 1959 to Historic?

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 12:48 PM 2/8/01 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
>From the current RFC index (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-index.txt):

>1959 An LDAP URL Format. T. Howes & M. Smith. June 1996. (Format:
>     TXT=7243 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC2255) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>
>2255 The LDAP URL Format. T. Howes, M. Smith. December 1997. (Format:
>     TXT=20685 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1959) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>
>I repeat: that's sufficient.

I believe the Status should be HISTORIC not PROPOSED STANDARD
per RFC 2026, 4.2.4.

   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent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.

I don't see how an "obsolete" specification can have any status
other than Historic.

Kurt