> However, a standards track document always trumps an informational
> document in any formal context, and you can point that out to
> customers.
Indeed. Should a Standards Track document published in 2011 trump an
informational document published in 2003?
If that is a challenging question for an
.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:15 AM
> To: George, Wes; 6man
> Subject: RE: RFC6164 and 3627
>
> Hi Wes,
>
> The discussion at that time was that 6164, which was in "standard track", did
> not have to update 3627 since it was "informational&
justify either using or not using
a /127 on their PtP link. Is it actually forbidden to update an informational
RFC with a standard's track one?
Thanks
Wes
From: Miya Kohno [mailto:mko...@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:15 AM
To: George, Wes; 6man
Subject: RE: RFC6164 an
29, 2011 10:50 PM
To: 6man
Subject: RFC6164 and 3627
A (possibly stupid) question occurred to me today -
Why doesn't RFC6164 formally update RFC3627? As it stands, this either
clarifies the existing guidance in 3627 or obsoletes it, but only
includes 3627 as an informative referenc
A (possibly stupid) question occurred to me today -
Why doesn't RFC6164 formally update RFC3627? As it stands, this either
clarifies the existing guidance in 3627 or obsoletes it, but only includes 3627
as an informative reference. I don't remember there being much discussion about
this particu
