On 27/Jan/12 23:01, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > >> *Updates 5965* >> >> It doesn't seem to actually update the format. If the use of ARF is >> meant to be updated, we probably need a section where that update is >> identified. > > It's my understanding that "RFCx updates RFCy" means "if you are > implementing RFCy, you really also need to read RFCx".
Agreed, that's more or less what Section 12 of RFC 2223 says. > For an applicability statement, therefore, this is typical. That's the point I don't get. If anything, I'd say marf-as updates RFC 6449. RFC 5965 implementations might well do without this I-D, IMHO. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
