Hi Alice, You are correct: "updates" has a very specific meaning in RFC (especially in the meta-data/header).
Rather than "alter" what about "extend" ? -éric From: Alice Russo <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 28 January 2026 at 20:58 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: Pascal Thubert <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Shwetha <[email protected]>, auth48archive <[email protected]>, RFC Editor <[email protected]> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9926 <draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-18> for your review 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]
