Subject: RFC6164 and 3627

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:50:12 -0400

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 particular aspect of the draft. I know there was lots of discussion about should/shouldn't use /127s, but not about this particular thing.

If we agree that 6164 should have updated 3627, how do we fix? Can this be handled as an errata filing on 6164, or do we have to write a 6164bis?

Thanks,

Wes George

________________________________
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.

---

From: Miya Kohno <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:15:14 +0800

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". 

Thanks,

Miya

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
George, Wes
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:50 PM
To: 6man
Subject: RFC6164 and 3627

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 particular aspect of the draft. I know there
was lots of discussion about should/shouldn't use /127s, but not about
this particular thing.

If we agree that 6164 should have updated 3627, how do we fix? Can this
be handled as an errata filing on 6164, or do we have to write a
6164bis?

Thanks,

Wes George

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.

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:23:30 -0400

Thanks for the quick response. However, IMO that's a pretty thin distinction that I do not believe will be obvious to those not involved in IETF who are looking for guidance on the matter. I have already had customers point to this conflict when we "wave RFCs at each other" to 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:[email-masked]]
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".

Thanks,
Miya

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of George, Wes
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:50 PM
To: 6man
Subject: RFC6164 and 3627

Thanks,

Wes George

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:27:56 +1300

Wes,

You could simply ask the IESG to reclassify 3627 as Historic. This
could have been done when 6164 was approved, I guess.

However, a standards track document always trumps an informational
document in any formal context, and you can point that out to
customers.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-09-30 05:23, George, Wes wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:58:54 -0400

> document in any formal context, and you can point that out to

Indeed. Should a Standards Track document published in 2011 trump an
informational document published in 2003?

If that is a challenging question for anyone to answer, I'm not sure
making something historic is going to make a whole lot of difference.

Thomas