----- Original Message ----- From: "JINMEI Tatuya > > BTW: the following part of Section 5.5 may have some relevant point: > > Creation of global and site-local addresses and configuration of > other parameters as described in this section SHOULD be locally > configurable. However, the processing described below MUST be enabled > by default. > > With the deprecation of site-local addresses and ignoring the "other > parameters" part, it reads: > > "Creation of global addresses SHOULD be locally configurable." > > I'm not 100% sure what "locally configurable" means, but I think this > generally controls whether the node performs entire 5.5.3 or doesn't > perform any part of 5.5.3 at all, rather than allowing finest-grained > flexibility, e.g., whether or not follow some specific part of the > rules such as 5.5.3 a. If there is ambiguity here also, we may have > to fix it 2462bis. >
I am concerned that when we depreciated site-locals that we may have left similar holes in many RFCs. Is there a procedure where we (as a working group) can go back and modify these already approved RFCs and replace them with an indication that it is updated (say a letter to indicate that it the most recent one) rather than having corrections listed in several newer RFCs or assigning it a new number or going through a lengthy last call procedure where other issues might arise? Eric -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
