On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests that
> this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
> specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
> SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.
>
>
> I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying
> whether hosts should use one or the other.
But the authors are making such statement here. i.e., if you are going
to implement SLAAC/DHCPv6, then this statement affects your
implementation. Hence, an appropriate tag should be included (i.e., such
that if I look at RFC4862 or RFC3315, it's clear that I should look at
this document, too).
I still don't see why this document needs to formally "updates: RFC 4862" if it doesn't affect any text in it.