On 11/15/2016 04:44 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx > <mailto: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? IMO, it certainly does, sine we're recommending something different than what such RFCs are saying -- i.e., we're updating them. Besides, the metadata points readers of such documents that they should read this one. Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492