On 11/15/2016 04:44 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>> wrote:
It formally updates RFC2464, RFC2467,
RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, RFC3572,
RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and RFC5121.
Does this document need to be a formal update to those RFCs? After all
the issues were resolved, the only remaining text that references those
RFCs is:
In particular,
this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs with
the schemes specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], [RFC2470], [RFC2491],
[RFC2492], [RFC2497], [RFC2590], [RFC3146], [RFC3572], [RFC4338],
[RFC4391], [RFC5121], and [RFC5072].
Does that require a formal update?
IMO, it certainly does, sine we're recommending something different than
what such RFCs are saying -- i.e., we're updating them.
Besides, the metadata points readers of such documents that they should
read this one.
Thanks!
Best regards,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492