On 8/26/10 9:13 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: >> RFC 3627? > > An informational document that carries no weight from a standards > perspective. > > It was also not the product of an IETF WG, it was an independent > submission. > > (But we all know how once something is an RFC, what it's actual IETF > status is is not always noticed or properly understood...)
That was my point. So, at a minimum, this draft should obsolete/supersede RFC 3627 so that we are not sending conflicting messages. Regards, Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
