IETF contacts? - Fwd: Reference to historic or obsolated RFCs
Hello guys, I've sent the e-mail below to IETF, but I couldn't find a contact e-mail to address this kind of subject in IETF site. Does anybody knows which e-mail to send this? The contact page from IETF website: http://www.ietf.org/contact-the-ietf.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Livio Zanol Puppim <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com> Date: 2012/8/6 Subject: Reference to historic or obsolated RFCs To: ietf-info@ietf.org, ietf-action@ietf.org Hello, I don't know which contact to send this e-mail, so I'm copying the INFO and ACTION e-mail... If these are the wrong contact, can you please point me the correct e-mail? Reading the *RFC 5375* I've found references to some RFCs that are considered Historic, or have been updated. In some cases, this can lead to a misunderstand of a a section in a RFC. For example: The* RFC 5375* in section *B.2.2* states that we should avoid using /127 IPv6 prefix, but* RFC 6164* clearly says that we can use /127 prefix for Inter-Router links. In fact, the *RFC 6547*, moves the *RFC 3627*(referenced by the * RFC 5375* in the above section) to Historic status. If my point of view is indeed correct, I think that everytime a new RFC is published that proposes an *Update* to another RFC, or *Obsoletes* another RFC or moves a RFC to *Historic *status, the team responsible for it's creation needs to read every reference to that RFC and request changes in order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. This is very important to guys like me, that only reads the RFCs. the section from RFC 5375 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2 " B.2.2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2>. /127 Addresses The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021> [RFC3021 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021>], is not valid and should be strongly discouraged as documented in RFC 3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627> [RFC3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627>]. " -- []'s Lívio Zanol Puppim -- []'s Lívio Zanol Puppim
On 2012-08-06, at 10:10, Livio Zanol Puppim <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com> wrote:
I've sent the e-mail below to IETF, but I couldn't find a contact e-mail to address this kind of subject in IETF site. Does anybody knows which e-mail to send this?
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest Joe
Thanks! :) 2012/8/6 Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
On 2012-08-06, at 10:10, Livio Zanol Puppim <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com> wrote:
I've sent the e-mail below to IETF, but I couldn't find a contact e-mail to address this kind of subject in IETF site. Does anybody knows which e-mail to send this?
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
Joe
-- []'s Lívio Zanol Puppim
I'd suggest the ietf-discussion list, since it's a matter for general discussion. On 06/08/2012 10:10 AM, Livio Zanol Puppim wrote:
Hello guys,
I've sent the e-mail below to IETF, but I couldn't find a contact e-mail to address this kind of subject in IETF site. Does anybody knows which e-mail to send this?
The contact page from IETF website: http://www.ietf.org/contact-the-ietf.html
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Livio Zanol Puppim <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com> Date: 2012/8/6 Subject: Reference to historic or obsolated RFCs To: ietf-info@ietf.org, ietf-action@ietf.org
Hello,
I don't know which contact to send this e-mail, so I'm copying the INFO and ACTION e-mail... If these are the wrong contact, can you please point me the correct e-mail?
Reading the *RFC 5375* I've found references to some RFCs that are considered Historic, or have been updated. In some cases, this can lead to a misunderstand of a a section in a RFC.
For example: The* RFC 5375* in section *B.2.2* states that we should avoid using /127 IPv6 prefix, but* RFC 6164* clearly says that we can use /127 prefix for Inter-Router links. In fact, the *RFC 6547*, moves the *RFC 3627*(referenced by the * RFC 5375* in the above section) to Historic status.
If my point of view is indeed correct, I think that everytime a new RFC is published that proposes an *Update* to another RFC, or *Obsoletes* another RFC or moves a RFC to *Historic *status, the team responsible for it's creation needs to read every reference to that RFC and request changes in order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. This is very important to guys like me, that only reads the RFCs.
the section from RFC 5375 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2
"
B.2.2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375#appendix-B.2.2>. /127 Addresses
The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021> [RFC3021 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021>], is not valid and should be strongly discouraged as documented in RFC 3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627> [RFC3627 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627>].
"
participants (3)
-
Joe Abley -
Livio Zanol Puppim -
Tom Taylor