IETF contacts? - Fwd: Reference to historic or obsolated RFCs

Mon Aug 6 14:25:09 UTC 2012

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 at gmail.com>
> Date: 2012/8/6
> Subject: Reference to historic or obsolated RFCs
> To: ietf-info at ietf.org, ietf-action at 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>].
>
> "
>