JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 17 May 2007 09:28:10 -0400, > Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> While it would be useful to update 3542, I don't think it is necessary. >> It is out-of-date given that it says the Type 0 routing header is the >> only one defined (it isn't). However, I don't see the benefit of >> revising that spec *just* for this. > > I agree... > >> Perhaps we should simply add a statement to the errata page for 3542 >> pointing to the deprecation document. > > ...but I don't think the errata page is the right place to note this > update either, since this is actually not an error of RFC3542 per se. > (Or can we use the errata page as a placeholder for possible updates > in the future?)
I agree that it is not an error in 3542, but it is something that needs fixing in 3542 (along with other items). In many instances the errata serves as a placeholder for update topics. I see no problem with doing that in this instance. Regards, Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
