Regards Brian Carpenter On 15/11/2016 20:58, Alissa Cooper wrote: > 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 <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? > > 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. I agree, fwiw. > One thing we could do is add a note about why this document updates the documents listed above, I think the whole point of this draft is exactly that, so what could we add? > taking the recommendation from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00 No, that draft suggests an extra section, which IMHO is just bureaucracy. Brian