Hi Wes,
The discussion at that time was that 6164, which was in "standard track", did not have to update 3627 since it was "informational". Thanks, Miya From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George, Wes Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:50 PM To: 6man Subject: RFC6164 and 3627 A (possibly stupid) question occurred to me today - Why doesn't RFC6164 formally update RFC3627? As it stands, this either clarifies the existing guidance in 3627 or obsoletes it, but only includes 3627 as an informative reference. I don't remember there being much discussion about this particular aspect of the draft. I know there was lots of discussion about should/shouldn't use /127s, but not about this particular thing. If we agree that 6164 should have updated 3627, how do we fix? Can this be handled as an errata filing on 6164, or do we have to write a 6164bis? Thanks, Wes George ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
