[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question on: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt



On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> In document  draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt we can
> read that it obsoletes RFRCs 2013 and 2454. As a result,
> RFC2454 will become historic (at least that is what sect
> 3.1.2 suggests/states). 
> 
> I then see:
> 
>    --
>    -- { udp 6 } was defined as the ipv6UdpTable in RFC2454's
>    -- IPV6-UDP-MIB.  This RFC obsoletes RFC 2454, so { udp 6 } is
>    -- obsoleted.
>    --
> 
> And wonder if it would not be better to pick up the definitions
> from RFC2454 and change the status to eitehr deprecated or
> obsoleted. That way we create a machine readable form of that
> status, whereas otherwise that is kind of vague.

I do not think this is practical. It might work with the IPV6-UDP-MIB
since it is small, but in the general case, we will end up producing 
very large documents with lots of obsolete/deprecate and actually
duplicate definitions. And people who still read RFC 2454 will not
notice anyway...
 
/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany