[rfc-i] Reference to historic or obsoleted RFCs

SM sm at resistor.net
Mon Aug 6 10:19:27 PDT 2012


Hello,
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.
>
>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 persons responsible for writing RFC 5375 are:

   Gunter Van de Velde
   Ciprian Popoviciu
   Tim Chown
   T-Systems Enterprise Services GmbH (this looks incorrect)
   Christian Hahn

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.

Regards,
-sm 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list