Hi, Just cutting to the discussion of routing...
> >> The only suggestion I would make for this document is to drop the > >> use of the 2119 language. It is only used in a few places and those > >> uses are not really appropriate for 2119 language. I would suggest > >> re-writing those guidelines with normal prose and drop the 2119 > >> boilerplate from the document. > > We tried not to use so much the 2119 language, but if you think it is better to > drop it completely, this can be done. > > But, what do you think about section 8 "Routing Consideration" ? There, with > 2119 language, we recommend that routers that do not support LISP do not > handle the prefix in any special way. WOuldn't be better to maintain that part? I am not sure that this document can mandate the behavior of routers that don't support this document. So the use of must/should language in upper or lower case seem inappropriate. Normally what we do is say: "Implementations that are not aware of this special feature will carry on processing as defined in [RFCfoo] with the following results..." Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
