> Oops -
>
> This document obsoletes RFC 2463 [RFC2463] and *updates*
> RFC 2780 [RFC-2780].
>
> With that proviso, yes!
Oops ! Sorry about that :)
> Okay, I'll await that.
There is another thread already going on about the second
comment. I would appreciate your comments to that thread
too
>
> It all makes sense now :) Thanks for being patient :)
>
> What about we replace "This document obsoletes RFC 2463=20
> [RFC-2463]." text with "This document obsoletes RFC 2463=20
> [RFC-2463] and RFC 2780 [RFC-2780]" ?
Oops -
This document obsoletes RFC 2463 [RFC2463] and *updates*
RFC 27
Gupta Mukesh.K (Nokia-NET/MtView)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IESG Comments about ICMPv6 draft: Obsoleting 2780
>
>
>
> Mukesh,
>
> Well, let me try again, we often have documents that update only part
> of the earlier docum
Mukesh,
Well, let me try again, we often have documents that update only part
of the earlier document.
In this case, we need people to know when the see RFC 2780
in the index that there is another RFC that modifies some of its
content. If this isn't done, they'll pick up RFC 2780 and be
misled
Allison,
Thanks for the fast response. Please see my comments inline..
> > This specification obsoletes 2780's IANA instructions for ICMPv6.
> > The IANA is requested to use the guidelines provided in this
> > specfication for assigning ICMPv6 type and code values as soon
> > as this specificati
