Usman, On 27/09/2012 12:43, Usman Latif wrote: > Hi Joel, > > RFC 6164 overriding 3627 seems logical > However, I am looking more from perspective of 5375
RFC 5375 is an Informational document. You are at liberty to read it or not, and to make use of it or not. RFC 6164 is a Standards track document. It is of course a voluntary standard like all IETF standards, but if you claim to implement it, it clearly preempts an older Informational document such as RFC 5375. As SM reminded us, it was probably a mistake that RFC 6164 didn't formally update RFC 5375, but so what? There are many minor inconsistencies between RFCs. Please don't lose any sleep over it. As long as you aren't accidentally running SLAAC on a pt2pt link, none of this matters, as far as I can see. Brian P.S. I am now adding this thread to my "ietf-silly-subj" filter. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
