[rfc-i] Reference to historic or obsoleted RFCs
sm at resistor.net
Mon Aug 6 10:19:27 PDT 2012
At 09:14 06-08-2012, Livio Zanol Puppim wrote:
>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.
>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 persons responsible for writing RFC 5375 are:
Gunter Van de Velde
T-Systems Enterprise Services GmbH (this looks incorrect)
The IETF working group responsible for the work is v6ops. The above
seems like an IETF problem. I suggest that you either contact the
persons responsible for the RFC or discuss the matter on the
ietf at ietf.org mailing list.
More information about the rfc-interest