Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Hmm... the way i understood it, this is just missing metadata
linking the two documents. But of course i have no experience
with current practices whether metadata will be fixed or not.

Metadata is a lot more like what i think metadata is if it can
be updated sedparately from the doc. Otherwise its a lot more like data ;-P

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:38:44PM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote:
> This is a question for the IESG (it's more a question of policy than
> it is tool capability).
> 
> I'm pretty sure the question's been asked before (and the discussion
> led to a "no, if you want to fix this, do it with an RFC").
> 
> RjS
> 
> 
> On 8/10/17 1:07 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> >     > FYI. I decided to raise an errata against RFC6275 that seems to update
> >     > RFC4861 without this being noted anywhere in either document.
> >
> >Are we able to update the metadata on RFC4861 in response to this errata?
> >I realize we can't re-issue 6275.
> >
> >Since the Updates is to make sure that readers of 4861 know about new things,
> >the metadata 4861->6275 (which shows up in the tools page and datatracker for
> >the old documents) is really the important direction.
> >
> >--
> >Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> >  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de