Dear David and Leo,
Thank you for your feedback.
The initial version of the proposal focusses only on references to
obsolete RFCs.
Your suggestion of a direct reference the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose
Address Registry" instead of referencing the RFC sounds reasonable.
If the Working Group feels that more updates to current references would
improve the IPv4 policy, I will be happy to take this into account for
an adjusted proposal version.
Best regards,
Andrea
On 24/04/2018 16:48, Leo Vegoda wrote:
David Farmer wrote:
Rather than updating the reference from RFC3330 to
RFC6890, by the way, RFC6890 itself has been updated
by RFC8190. Further, numerous RFCs have updated the
registry since its creation by RFC5736 and its expansion
by RFC6890. Therefore, I think it would be better to
directly reference the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose
Address Registry" at its permanent URL
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry ),
instead of referencing the RFC that created the registry.
This is sound.
When we wrote RFC 6890 we intended to make the registry a stable and
authoritative source, rather than have to update whatever the RFC was at the
time that an assignment changed or a new assignment was made. Referencing the
registry instead of an RFC makes sense.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
