Actually, I don't think an IETF document can formally update or obsolete an Independent Submission, which even by its title is only expressing an opinion. But we can certainly document the facts that (a) RFC 3627 does not represent IETF consensus and that (b) the IETF consensus is that /127 is not harmful, in specified circumstances.
Brian Carpenter On 2010-08-27 01:27, Brian Haberman wrote: > On 8/26/10 9:13 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>> RFC 3627? >> An informational document that carries no weight from a standards >> perspective. >> >> It was also not the product of an IETF WG, it was an independent >> submission. >> >> (But we all know how once something is an RFC, what it's actual IETF >> status is is not always noticed or properly understood...) > > That was my point. So, at a minimum, this draft should > obsolete/supersede RFC 3627 so that we are not sending conflicting messages. > > Regards, > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
