Allison, It all makes sense now :) Thanks for being patient :)
What about we replace "This document obsoletes RFC 2463 [RFC-2463]." text with "This document obsoletes RFC 2463 [RFC-2463] and RFC 2780 [RFC-2780]" ? and Margaret adds a note to the RFC editor in her writeup. Both these action should take care of your second comment. Right ? I am still trying to address your first comment about ESP/AH RFCs. Regards Mukesh > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Allison Mankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 4:40 PM > To: Gupta Mukesh.K (Nokia-NET/MtView) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IESG Comments about ICMPv6 draft: Obsoleting 2780 > > > > Mukesh, > > Well, let me try again, we often have documents that update only part > of the earlier document. > > In this case, we need people to know when the see RFC 2780 > in the index that there is another RFC that modifies some of its > content. If this isn't done, they'll pick up RFC 2780 and be > misled into asking for the RFC 2780 rules for ICMPv6. This causes > delay and problems until they get straightened out to get to the > right rules for ICMPv6. If you look at the RFC Editor definition > for Updates, it does not say how much of the RFC has to be updated > (see below). > > > > RFC 2780 provides guidelines for more than ICMP (IPv4, IPv6, > > TCP, UDP) and this ICMPv6 draft updates only section 6 and 7=20 > > (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 ? > > > > The RFC Editor has the following formal rule (in their > almost approved > draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt) > > Updates > > Specifies an earlier document whose contents are modified or > augmented by the new document. The new document cannot be > used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the > earlier document. > > This says nothing about how much or how little of the earlier > document the new document updates. > > Does this give you enough help on the update point? Margaret, > this ok? > > Allison > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
