Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> >     The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests that
> >     this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
> >     specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
> >     SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.
> >
> >
> > I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying
> > whether hosts should use one or the other.
>
> But the authors are making such statement here. i.e., if you are going
> to implement SLAAC/DHCPv6, then this statement affects your
> implementation. Hence, an appropriate tag should be included (i.e., such
> that if I look at RFC4862 or RFC3315, it's clear that I should look at
> this document, too).


I still don't see why this document needs to formally "updates: RFC 4862"
if it doesn't affect any text in it.