Hi Éric, Re: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9926.html
From discussion with Pascal, we're seeking your guidance on this topic: As you know, in the RFC series, the words "updates" and "updated by" are used for specific relationships between RFCs (even though the labels have been applied with various criteria over the years). So these two statements seem inaccurate. Would "alters" and "altered by" or other options be possible? Original: Section 5.5 of [RFC8505] updates [RFC4861] to signal the Registered Address in the Target Address field. [...] [RFC7400] was already updated by [RFC8505] for use in IPv6 ND messages. [Of note: RFC 8505 updates RFC 6775, not RFC 4861 or RFC 7400.] Perhaps: Section 5.5 of [RFC8505] alters [RFC4861] to signal the Registered Address in the Target Address field. [...] [RFC7400] was already altered by [RFC8505] for use in IPv6 ND messages. Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Jan 27, 2026, I wrote: > - Re: #13 and 14, in the RFC series, "updates" and "updated by" have a > specific meaning when referring to relationships between RFCs, so these two > statements are inaccurate. For the second statement, we see that "extended > by" was used in version 12 of the draft and it was changed to "updated by". > Would "alters" and "altered by" or other options be possible? > >> Original: >> Section 5.5 of [RFC8505] updates [RFC4861] to signal the Registered >> Address in the Target Address field. >> >> Original: >> [RFC7400] was already updated by [RFC8505] for use in IPv6 ND >> messages. > On Jan 26, 2026, [email protected] wrote: > 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether this sentence is accurate > and let us know if any changes are needed. > We note that Section 5.5 of [RFC8505] does not mention [RFC4861]. > Also, regarding the "Updates" relationship between RFCs, > RFC 8505 updates RFC 6775, not RFC 4861. > > Original: > Section 5.5 of [RFC8505] updates [RFC4861] to signal the Registered > Address in the Target Address field. > --> > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] How should the second sentence be updated for accuracy? > The original is not accurate because RFC 8505 does not update RFC 7400. > (RFC 8505 updates RFC 6775.) > > Original: > This specification updates "6LoWPAN-GHC: Generic Header Compression > for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)" > [RFC7400] by defining a new capability bit for use in the 6CIO. > [RFC7400] was already updated by [RFC8505] for use in IPv6 ND > messages. > --> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
