Adding 6man, since the RFCs referenced are from that working group. Speaking as the author of 6547, which I wrote to fix the fact that 6164 didn't formally obsolete 3627 when it changed IETF's guidance on the matter, I didn't know about the other RFCs that cited 3627 regarding the use of /127s, mainly because I didn't realize at the time that this page existed: http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc3627.html I suppose that WGLC and IETF LC reviews should have pointed these omissions out, but alas we all missed it.
That said, each of the references in those other RFCs will point to 3627, and when one looks up 3627, it will note that it is obsoleted by 6547, which points to the updated guidance in 6164. It's convoluted, but will eventually get you to the right (current) guidance. Question to the WG (and to Barry, given his recent guidance on Errata) - would it be appropriate to file an errata on 6547 noting the additional RFCs that it should be updating, is this a matter of issuing a 6547-bis, or does it simply not matter? Thanks, Wes George > -----Original Message----- > From: Livio Zanol Puppim [mailto:livio.zanol.pup...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 10:11 AM > To: NANOG list > Subject: IETF contacts? - Fwd: Reference to historic or obsolated RFCs > > Hello guys, > > I've sent the e-mail below to IETF, but I couldn't find a contact e-mail > to address this kind of subject in IETF site. Does anybody knows which > e-mail to send this? > > The contact page from IETF website: > http://www.ietf.org/contact-the-ietf.html > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Livio Zanol Puppim <livio.zanol.pup...@gmail.com> > Date: 2012/8/6 > Subject: Reference to historic or obsolated RFCs > To: ietf-i...@ietf.org, ietf-act...@ietf.org > > > Hello, > > I don't know which contact to send this e-mail, so I'm copying the INFO > and ACTION e-mail... If these are the wrong contact, can you please > point me the correct e-mail? > > Reading the *RFC 5375* I've found references to some RFCs that are > considered Historic, or have been updated. In some cases, this can lead > to a misunderstand of a a section in a RFC. > > For example: > The* RFC 5375* in section *B.2.2* states that we should avoid using /127 > IPv6 prefix, but* RFC 6164* clearly says that we can use /127 prefix for > Inter-Router links. In fact, the *RFC 6547*, moves the *RFC > 3627*(referenced by the > * RFC 5375* in the above section) to Historic status. > > If my point of view is indeed correct, I think that everytime a new RFC > is published that proposes an *Update* to another RFC, or *Obsoletes* > another RFC or moves a RFC to *Historic *status, the team responsible > for it's creation needs to read every reference to that RFC and request > changes in order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. This is very > important to guys like me, that only reads the RFCs. > > the section from RFC 5375 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2 > > " > > > B.2.2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2>. /127 > Addresses > > The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021> > [RFC3021 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021>], is not valid and > should be strongly discouraged as > documented in RFC 3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627> > [RFC3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627>]. > > " > > -- > []'s > > Lívio Zanol Puppim > > > > -- > []'s > > Lívio Zanol Puppim 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
