Hi Dino, Thank you for the comments.
Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : lundi 27 juin 2016 23:31 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; JACQUENET Christian IMT/OLN Cc : LISP mailing list list Objet : Brief comments to draft-boucadair-lisp-type-iana-01 Mohamed/Christian, some minor comments. [cid:[email protected]] I think adding a new type so we can define new types is a good idea. But I would not call the subtype “Experiment ID” because we may want to allocate values for real production use. So I suggest just calling the field “sub-type”. [Med] Works for me. [cid:[email protected]] I would add packet types that not have been defined in RFC6830 (but will go into RFC6830bis) which are in use today in several implementations. That is Map-Notify-Ack, Info-Request, and Info-Reply. [Med] I suggest to restrict the initial table to RFC6830 + the new type in the draft. Documents defining other messages should include an IANA section to formally request a code; a preferred value can be indicated to IANA. I added this NEW sentence to the draft: Documents that request for a new LISP packet type may indicate a preferred value in the corresponding IANA sections. I would also change “LISP Experimental Message” to “LISP Extension Types”. [Med] I prefer “LISP Experimental Message” to reflect that the message is reserved for experimental use. Thanks, Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
