Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> (Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
It formally updates RFC2464, RFC2467,
   RFC2470, RFC2491, RFC2492, RFC2497, RFC2590, RFC3146, RFC3572,
   RFC4291, RFC4338, RFC4391, RFC5072, and RFC5121.

Does this document need to be a formal update to those RFCs? After all the issues were resolved, the only remaining text that references those RFCs is:

   In particular,
   this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs with
   the schemes specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], [RFC2470], [RFC2491],
   [RFC2492], [RFC2497], [RFC2590], [RFC3146], [RFC3572], [RFC4338],
   [RFC4391], [RFC5121], and [RFC5072].

Does that require a formal update?

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]