RFC 4291 cites it (includes it by reference) but not as a normative
reference, but also restates the action taken by RFC 3879. Assuming RFC
4291 progresses along the standards track making the deprecation of
Site-local a "standard" is there any need to also promote 3879? Also,
since 4291 obsoletes 3351, the definition of site-local address is
effectively erased, as if it never existed, although the text does not
say MUST NOT, and allows for the use of site-local by preexisting
implementations.
In the latest version of the US DoD IPv6 profiles, RFC 3879 is mentioned
only as a footnote because RFC 4291 appears to be definitive enough.
Bob Hinden wrote:
Christian,
RFC 3879 was published as proposed standard about 5 years ago. Do we
intend to leave it at that stage, or to update its status along the
standard track?
What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
