The proposals 128086 and 128087 are electing the same version. The key differences between them is that 128086 doesn’t have fallback update URL, and 128087 has a copy/paste error which includes text for both its release and the release proposed in 128088. (you can that there are 2 features sections and second one includes the same text as 128086.
Change log since git revision 8d4b6898d878fa3db4028b316b78b469ed29f293
Additionally, you’re right that proposal 128087 doesn’t retire replicas. This is suboptimal, but we can place another proposal to retire versions or retire them on the next release. The reason they’re missing from this proposal is that tooling already parses out active proposals and skips retiring versions that were proposed to retire in proposal 128086.
In conclusion - 128086 is not usable because it’s missing fallback URL, 128087 is usable but has an extra description (copy/pasted from next release in 128088 proposal) which doesn’t accurately describe the release, and doesn’t retire old versions which we can mitigated by placing another proposal.
Two possible solutions to resolve the issues we have here are: (1) adopt 128087 and place another proposal to retire old versions, or (2) reject 128087 and place another proposal that fixes all the issues. Proposal 128086 has to be rejected in any case.