Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D07B129A39; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:58:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=tx0bITB2; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ADfte68F Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aqAdzYlA94aE; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:58:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F15D51294E3; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:58:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C6A2081A; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:58:17 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=RvtvCJgyrqiPKeI5jMDcCbKxErc=; b=tx0bIT B2CLqdyT5xIjgWxJWGrO7LMyYnx10pvxWgsxR/n4KHOTRTZ3lmAkfWlUBkIdpC7F LIvtNW1H06E3tXRMDs0BgQlVfsfHEzMmSSHlNSrf/2NCvnHNyYgzad0jdrTySWFk 0WfvCCOGrXenMsdo2MODmRC4jR/OJPZW4PIVo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=RvtvCJgyrqiPKe I5jMDcCbKxErc=; b=ADfte68FVa630swixBfEyJL5w+nyVr2w/m/KPpwZ/xQcBQ NBaAQABlG9YOyfJahbbu16IKVW6QDzhWn1fRJzbCrvN+QHABc8SbPYFib64aE6U2 i2+648gMSoJi/3dxqOFmvQbrIvU0UQTgO2vKqpvRLYdyFfXHfLrpNY62RUohA= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: omFN6gS3U+0urEMT3/XJcX4jQtWf7xY6RJGbQOO7oTdX 1479196696 Received: from [10.24.8.140] (unknown [128.107.241.187]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5D9337E427; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:58:15 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBCA3FCA-7450-4487-87BB-D9E6E1FA244C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: Last Call: (Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers) to Proposed Standard From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:58:12 +0900 Message-Id: References: <147917959004.8493.15676171079880753223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Lorenzo Colitti X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List , draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org, IETF Discussion , Bob Hinden , 6man-chairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:58:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_EBCA3FCA-7450-4487-87BB-D9E6E1FA244C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Lorenzo, > On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:44 PM, Lorenzo Colitti = wrote: >=20 > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, The IESG > wrote: > It formally updates RFC2464, RFC2467, > RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, RFC3572, > RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and RFC5121. >=20 > Does this document need to be a formal update to those RFCs? After all = the issues were resolved, the only remaining text that references those = RFCs is: >=20 > In particular, > this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs = with > the schemes specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], [RFC2470], = [RFC2491], > [RFC2492], [RFC2497], [RFC2590], [RFC3146], [RFC3572], [RFC4338], > [RFC4391], [RFC5121], and [RFC5072]. >=20 > Does that require a formal update? I think so. If the documents listed were being written from scratch = today, I think they would contain the recommendation quoted above. That = seems to align with the definition of =E2=80=9CUpdates=E2=80=9D given in = RFC 2223. One thing we could do is add a note about why this document updates the = documents listed above, taking the recommendation from = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00 = . Alissa= --Apple-Mail=_EBCA3FCA-7450-4487-87BB-D9E6E1FA244C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Hi Lorenzo,

On = Nov 15, 2016, at 4:44 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> = wrote:

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> = wrote:
It formally updates RFC2464, = RFC2467,
   RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, = RFC3572,
   RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and = RFC5121.

Does this document need to be a formal update to those RFCs? = After all the issues were resolved, the only remaining text that = references those RFCs is:

   In particular,
   this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not = generate stable IIDs with
   the schemes = specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], [RFC2470], [RFC2491],
   [RFC2492], [RFC2497], [RFC2590], [RFC3146], = [RFC3572], [RFC4338],
   [RFC4391], = [RFC5121], and [RFC5072].

Does that require a formal = update?

I think so. If = the documents listed were being written from scratch today, I think they = would contain the recommendation quoted above. That seems to align with = the definition of =E2=80=9CUpdates=E2=80=9D given in RFC 2223.

One thing we could do is = add a note about why this document updates the documents listed above, = taking the recommendation from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.

Alissa
= --Apple-Mail=_EBCA3FCA-7450-4487-87BB-D9E6E1FA244C--