>>>>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:24:25 -0600,
>>>>> Kristine Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Suggestion:
>> 1) Set up an issue tracker for this (and perhaps every IPv6 RFC for
>> which there are some known errors/omissions?) that keeps track of
>> these sorts of things. That way folk will be able to more easily
>> find the list of outstanding issues (and their likely resolution),
>> and we (the IETF community) won't lose track of them.
>>
>> 2) Although it may be overkill in this case, one could easily publish
>> a (very!) short RFC just listing the additional code points, so
>> that they are documened in the RFC series, and folk looking at the
>> older RFC can find the new RFC via the "updated by" tag.
> Besides adding the programming names of the new ICMPv6 code points to
> RFC3542, the following documents an old, minor problem with RFC3542, that
> was listed in the errata. This problem could also be resolved with a new,
> short RFC that updates RFC3542. Since there are 2 problems that could be
> resolved with a new RFC, do we now have sufficient reasons to publish a
> new RFC? Thanks!
Opinions may vary, but I personally still do *not* think the
followings are enough for even a "very short RFC":
- the minor correction recorded at the RFC errata page
- macro names for the two new ICMPv6 codes
I personally think it makes more sense to file the issues at an issue
tracker (suggestion 1 from Thomas). With future possible
issues/corrections/additions in that page, we'll probably reach the
point where most of us can agree on the need for an updating RFC.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
