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

[Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lorenzo,

On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:44 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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?

I think so. If the documents listed were being written from scratch today, I think they would contain the recommendation quoted above. That seems to align with the definition of “Updates” given in RFC 2223.

One thing we could do is add a note about why this document updates the documents listed above, taking the recommendation from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.

Alissa