RFC Errata
RFC 7421, "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", January 2015
Source of RFC: 6man (int)
Errata ID: 5699
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alexandre PETRESCU
Date Reported: 2019-04-19
Rejected by: Erik Kline
Date Rejected: 2021-12-18
Throughout the document, when it says:
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7421 Univ. of Auckland
Category: Informational T. Chown
ISSN: 2070-1721 Univ. of Southampton
F. Gont
SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
S. Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
A. Petrescu
CEA, LIST
A. Yourtchenko
Cisco
January 2015
It should say:
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7421 Univ. of Auckland
Category: Informational T. Chown
ISSN: 2070-1721 Univ. of Southampton
F. Gont
SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
S. Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
A. Yourtchenko
Cisco
January 2015
Notes:
For some reason I got in the group, then participated positively to the discussion, and I let myself tempted to have my name up on the first page of a published RFC; but finally, after much time and reflexion, I think I do not agree with the effects of this RFC.
I do not agree that 64bit is a boundary.
Remark: you are asking Type 'Technical' or 'Editorial'; only one choice is possible. I do not understand that. My issue is both.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Quoting the AD at the time: "RFCs are immutable once published. Period."
For more discussion, see the mail archive thread https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HzHbbAqaa4qquKNjaYtv3Te7IJc/
