> > > > > That could be reported as an erratum against RFC 6164. > > IN ADDITION to citing RFC 6164 as updating RFC 4291, this makes sense to > me. >
[WEG] FWIW, I suggested the erratum route when I realized that 6164 also failed to take obsolete 3627, and was told by IESG that I needed to write a short draft, hence 6547. Wish someone had brought up 4291 at the time when the draft of 6547 was being reviewed... 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
