On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
RFC 3627 was reviewed by IPv6 WG at the time even though it wasn't a product of a WG.
I don't see a procedural problem in practise in obsoleting an Independent Submission, as long as the new RFC represents consensus and the viewpoints of the previous document fairly.
Speaking as an author, I'd be more than happy to declare RFC 3627 obsolete, historic and/or replace it with another RFC _provided that_ RFC 2526 is deprecated at the same time. This would also require an Updates: 4291 (Section 2.6.1) and 3775 (Section 6.5; the ICMP-based dynamic HA discovery).
Otherwise the situation is more delicate but not necessarily unmanageable. There is danger that yet another document adds rather removes confusion unless a previous one is obsoleted or there is a lot of clear text on how these documents fit together.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
