IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 10 August 2017 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69AA1323C1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UlUKI-RNoK9M for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2F2912009C for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.15.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v7AIcidv020325 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:38:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.15.50] claimed to be unescapeable.local
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8447.1502388439@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <a3ed97e2-e907-6a20-0d00-6de532784f0c@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:38:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8447.1502388439@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qCdwhEmVlYtqbhC73ImA5Mc3i88>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:38:48 -0000

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 =-
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email