RFC 4659, "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN", September 2006Source of RFC: l3vpn (int)
Errata ID: 4087
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Wesley George
Date Reported: 2014-08-18
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2014-11-20
Throughout the document, when it says:
No "updates" metadata reference to update RFC4364
It should say:
This document updates RFC4364 (and associated metadata links)
RFC4659 provides an extension to the standard defined in RFC4364 to add IPv6 support to a standard that was originally IPv4-only. This metadata link will make it clearer for implementers that both standards are necessary for a full implementation.
Considering the definition of "updates", the normal terms of an errata report, and the discussion on the Bess mailing list I am rejecting this.
This should not be construed as meaning that IPv6 support is not critically important: BGP/MPLS VPNs should, of course, be fully functional in IPv6 networks.