> 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:
That is fine to not include Info-Request and Info-Reply but Map-Notify-Ack has been in implementations for a long time so value 5 has been assigned and will be included in RFC6830bis. So I think you should include at least Map-Notify-Ack. > 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. That is fine. Thanks. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
