[rfc-i] Reference to historic or obsoleted RFCs

Livio Zanol Puppim livio.zanol.puppim at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 09:14:36 PDT 2012


Hello,

Reading the *RFC 5375* I've found references to some RFCs that are
considered Historic, or have been updated. In some cases, this can lead to
a misunderstand of a section in a RFC.

For example:
The* RFC 5375* in section *B.2.2* states that we should avoid using /127
IPv6 prefix, but* RFC 6164* clearly says that we can use /127 prefix for
Inter-Router links. In fact, the *RFC 6547*, moves the *RFC
3627*(referenced by the
* RFC 5375* in the above section) to Historic status.

If my point of view is indeed correct, I think that every time a new RFC is
published that proposes an *Update* to another RFC, or *Obsoletes* another
RFC or moves a RFC to *Historic *status, the team responsible for it's
creation needs to read every reference to that RFC and request changes in
order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. This is very important to
guys like me, that only reads the RFCs.

the section from RFC 5375
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2

"



B.2.2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2>.  /127 Addresses

   The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021>
   [RFC3021 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021>], is not valid and
should be strongly discouraged as
   documented in RFC 3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627>
[RFC3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627>].

"



-- 
[]'s

Lívio Zanol Puppim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120806/b9d6174a/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list