On Monday, February 22, 2016 4:36 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont
<fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
But the authors are making such statement here. i.e., if you are going
to implement SLAAC/DHCPv6, then this statement affects your
implementation. Hence, an appropriate tag should be included (i.e., such
that if I look at RFC4862 or RFC3315, it's clear that I should look at
this document, too).
I still don't see why this document needs to formally "updates: RFC 4862" if
it doesn't affect any > text in it.
We actually had an extensive discussion on a related topic, whether to state
that the document was "updating RFC 4361." We concluded that no, it wasn't,
using precisely the test that Lorenzo mentions. The consensus was that an RFC
can only update another one if it replaces some of the original text. You have
to be able to say something like "in section X of RFC Y, replace the sentence
so and so by this and that," or "add this paragraph."
-- Christian Huitema