Wes, You could simply ask the IESG to reclassify 3627 as Historic. This could have been done when 6164 was approved, I guess.
However, a standards track document always trumps an informational document in any formal context, and you can point that out to customers. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-09-30 05:23, George, Wes wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. However, IMO that's a pretty thin distinction > that I do not believe will be obvious to those not involved in IETF who are > looking for guidance on the matter. I have already had customers point to > this conflict when we "wave RFCs at each other" to justify either using or > not using a /127 on their PtP link. Is it actually forbidden to update an > informational RFC with a standard's track one? > > Thanks > Wes > > > From: Miya Kohno [mailto:mko...@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:15 AM > To: George, Wes; 6man > Subject: RE: RFC6164 and 3627 > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
