Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 6164, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links", April 2011

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6547

Errata ID: 3422
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Benjamin Cama
Date Reported: 2012-11-29
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-11-29

Section 6 says:

   (b)  Addresses in which the rightmost 64 bits are assigned the
        highest 128 values (i.e., ffff:ffff:ffff:ff7f to ffff:ffff:ffff:
        ffff) SHOULD NOT be used as unicast addresses, to avoid
        colliding with reserved subnet anycast addresses [RFC2526].

It should say:

   (b)  Addresses in which the rightmost 64 bits are assigned the
        highest 128 values (i.e., ffff:ffff:ffff:ff80 to ffff:ffff:ffff:
        ffff) SHOULD NOT be used as unicast addresses, to avoid
        colliding with reserved subnet anycast addresses [RFC2526].

Notes:

The highest 128 values start at ffff:ffff:ffff:ff80, not ffff:ffff:ffff:ff7f.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 6164, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links", April 2011

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6547

Errata ID: 5080
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: toerless Eckert
Date Reported: 2017-08-08

Throughout the document, when it says:

Request for Comments: 6164
Category: Standards Track

It should say:

Request for Comments: 6164
Category: Standards Track
Updates: RFC4291

Notes:

The solution described in RFC6164 updates RFC4291 because it violates the requirement of RFC4291 section 2.5.1 for the IIDs to be 64-bit long and be constructed from EUI-64 format.

Please feel free to reconfirm with 6man WG. In Prague, the suggestion was made that all documents introducing solutions that are not compliant with this requirement must be tracked as updated to RFC6164. When i asked on the list recently, i was given the suggestion to file an Errata as i am doing right now.

Note that i think that i do not think that "just wait for rfc4291bis" would be a good answer to this errata because rfc6164 of course predates it, and even more so, correct proedural tracking of rfc4291 updates can potentially help the process of getting to rfc4291bis.

Report New Errata