On 8/6/12 12:09 PM, George, Wes wrote:
Adding 6man, since the RFCs referenced are from that working group.
Speaking as the author of 6547, which I wrote to fix the fact that
6164 didn't formally obsolete 3627 when it changed IETF's guidance on
the matter, I didn't know about the other RFCs that cited 3627
regarding the use of /127s, mainly because I didn't realize at the
time that this page existed:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc3627.html I suppose
that WGLC and IETF LC reviews should have pointed these omissions
out, but alas we all missed it.
That said, each of the references in those other RFCs will point to
3627, and when one looks up 3627, it will note that it is obsoleted
by 6547, which points to the updated guidance in 6164. It's
convoluted, but will eventually get you to the right (current)
guidance.
Question to the WG (and to Barry, given his recent guidance on
Errata) - would it be appropriate to file an errata on 6547 noting
the additional RFCs that it should be updating, is this a matter of
issuing a 6547-bis, or does it simply not matter?
I am not sure what an errata statement would say in this context. It is
not the responsibility of 6164 to fix all references to 3627.
Regards,
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
