Re: RFC6164 and 3627

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:
> 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:mkohno@juniper.net]
> 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: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George, Wes
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:50 PM
> To: 6man
> Subject: RFC6164 and 3627
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------