Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > If that isn't an update to rfc4861 then I don't know what would be...
>
> An update to 4861 would be something that would affect the implementor of
> 4861 and changes that could be incorporated if 4861 would be updated.
> that's not at all 6275. 6275 can be completely ignored from a 4861
> perspective, unless you chose to implement 6275.
>

Since RFC4861, or it's predecessors, didn't create a registry for the flags
in question, it (RFC4861) is the primary and best source for the definition
of those flags. If and only if, the authors of RFC4861 had created a
registry for the flags would such a registry become the primary source
instead.  Since RFC4861 is the primary source, the subsequent creation of
such a registry would need to at least be update to RFC4861 as well.
Finally, RFCs and their metadata, serve more than just implementers, they
may be the primary intended audience, but there are many secondary
audiences, operators, developers of other (future) standards, students,
etc...  A change in these flags may or may not be relevant to an
implementer of RFC4861, but it could be of critical importance to these
other audiences, and as the primary source for the meaning of those flags,
it seems quite appropriate for any and all changes in the meaning of those
flags to be an update to RFC4861.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================