[rfc-i] Reference to historic or obsoleted RFCs

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 09:41:36 PDT 2012


Livio,

On 06/08/2012 17:14, Livio Zanol Puppim wrote:
> 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 

Did you ever hear about the ComeFrom statement, proposed as an alternative
to the GoTo at one point in the history of programming languages? A bit hard
to implement, like finding "every reference to that RFC". If you mean evry
RFC that references an RFC, that's indeed possible with
http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc3627.html

You are correct, a conscientious author should always do that.

> and request changes in
> order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. This is very important to
> guys like me, that only reads the RFCs.

It may not be a matter of requesting specific changes, but deciding what to
do is certainly necessary.

However, the reader of an RFC should always check the status of that RFC
before implementing it. Thus, someone who follows the reference from 5375
to 3627 would discover that it is now obsoleted.

Also, 6164 is on the standards track, so it automatically beats the others,
which are Informational.

Unfortunately today there is no easy way to avoid this sort of problem
except by careful study of the status of each RFC (for example in the
RFC Index).

Regards,

    Brian

> 
> 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>].
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list