On Mar 9, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 2/6/15 12:58 PM, Gregg Schudel (gschudel) wrote: >> >> On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It turns out that the discussion during review was with the upper limit. >>> I can't find any reference to discussions on the lower limit. Authors? >> >> going back to check Brian - it was a while ago. > > Have we gotten anywhere with this check? The erratum is sitting in a > less-than-useful state at this point. > > Regards, > Brian Hi Brian I’m really sorry about droppng this. I’ve checked internal notes, authors, etc. I cannot find any record of (nor do we recall) us discussing “minimum length.” Looking at it now, the value of “5” in RFC7052 does not match any “real minimum length” that we can see. Further, (in discussing with Isidor), the ability to return unspecified as an empty address, hence “0” length, makes sense. So, again - the errate makes sense. No evidence is available to indicate otherwise. thanks! Best regards, Gregg -------------------------------------------------------------------- .:|:.:|:. | gregg schudel (ccie#9591) LISP technical marketing engr cisco | mobile: +1 571 332 2222 email: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------- cisco corporate legal statement: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
