>
> >
> > 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
Le 2013-02-11 à 11:55, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> (Correcting the Subject header )
Oops, 6144 instead of 6164 was a typo!
>
> 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.
Thanks,
RD
>
> Regards
> Br
(Correcting the Subject header)
That could be reported as an erratum against RFC 6164.
Regards
Brian
On 11/02/2013 10:13, Rémi Després wrote:
> Hi, Bob, Ole,
>
> RFC 6164 (/127 on inter-router links) is in fact an update of RFC4291 (IPv6
> addressing architecture).
> Yet, it isn't listed as
