[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: 2018-03 New Policy Proposal (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)

David Farmer wrote:

> Rather than updating the reference from RFC3330 to
> RFC6890, by the way, RFC6890 itself has been updated
> by RFC8190.  Further, numerous RFCs have updated the
> registry since its creation by RFC5736 and its expansion
> by RFC6890. Therefore, I think it would be better to
> directly reference the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose
> Address Registry" at its permanent URL
> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry ),
> instead of referencing the RFC that created the registry.

This is sound.

When we wrote RFC 6890 we intended to make the registry a stable and 
authoritative source, rather than have to update whatever the RFC was at the 
time that an assignment changed or a new assignment was made. Referencing the 
registry instead of an RFC makes sense.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3739 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180424/0f5ddb27/attachment.p7s>