Subject: Re: rfc6164 vs rfc4291 question

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 00:59:52 +0200

Nobody ?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:23:28AM +0200, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Why if rfc6164 not tracked as an update to rfc4291 given how it explicitly refers
> to not complying to RFC4291 specification (eg: non /64 interface identifiers) ?
> 
> I also think to remember that one of the co-authors of rfc4291 said during prague
> 6man that documents that do this should be tracked as updates of rfc4291.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 11:28:15 +1200

If you think it's an error in RFC6164, you should report it:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php#reportnew

It's an interesting question whether, if such an erratum is accepted,
the RFC Editor would then update the metadata for RFC4291.

However, if we manage to get rfc4291bis out, the issue will be resolved
anyway.

Regards
   Brian

On 05/08/2017 10:59, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:26:32 +0200

Thanks, done. Strange system. Didn't give me a ticket number but
just "we'll get back to you".

-- 
---
[email-masked]