On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 9:01 PM Carl Wallace <carl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The coauthors feel updating 7050 and 8880 would be inappropriate because our draft does not modify those documents in any way, nor does it obsolete those RFCs. Once a node has decided to add implementation support for 7050/8880, which our draft does not forbid, there is no guidance in our draft it needs to follow to make their implementation compliant with 7050/8880. > > >> Does that reasoning make sense? > > [CW] It makes sense, but your draft might influence that decision making. While your draft does not modify the technical details, it could be viewed as augmenting the security considerations and operational considerations. I could see it going either way. The sentence with "has other security challenges worth noting to justify declaring it legacy" is what generated the question. Oh that's a good catch. How about changing it to: "has other security challenges worth noting to justify considering alternative technologies"? > 2025-07-28T21:17:12Z Carl Wallace via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx <mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx>>: > > > > Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781 > > Title: Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address > > Synthesis Reviewer: Carl Wallace Review result: Ready > > > > This draft makes a case for not using RFC7050 and instead using alternatives > > like RFC8781. It's well organized and well written. One question, should this > > marked as updating RFC7050 (and RFC8880)? > > > > -- Cheers, Jen Linkova -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
