Allison, Thanks for the fast response. Please see my comments inline..
> > This specification obsoletes 2780's IANA instructions for ICMPv6. > > The IANA is requested to use the guidelines provided in this > > specfication for assigning ICMPv6 type and code values as soon > > as this specification is published as a RFC. > > This text is very good. Good then I will add this to the next rev. > Updating an RFC often means just updating a part. True but there is more to it in this particular case. See below. > it's important for > for someone who want to do a registry action about ICMPv6 and may > look at RFC 2780. Because you tell RFC Editor that this spec > updates RFC 2780, there will be a pointer in the index from > RFC 2780 to this spec, guiding the person here. It's a help > if someone is doing an RFC-index based search for how to register. RFC 2780 provides guidelines for more than ICMP (IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP) and this ICMPv6 draft updates only section 6 and 7 (ICMP). So will it not be wrong to say that this spec updates 2780. What if someone was looking to do a registry action about TCP and they looked at the index and looked at the note that 2780 has been updated by this spec and couldn't find guidelines for TCP in this spec ? Am I making my concern clear ? > My comment didn't mean you needed to add more statements > about obsoleting RFC 2463 to the draft, just add the one > fact to the other. And it would be good to ask your AD put > the RFC obsoleted and RFC updated info in the writeup, so the > RFC Editor doesn't have to dig it out of the spec. Margaret, could you please add this info to the writeup ? Regards Mukesh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
