Hi Stig, thanks for the review.
Just a quick comment on one of the last point you raised: > On 08 Sep 2016, at 23:02, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > >> Section 7 >> It looks like the table in the IANA considerations doesn't include all >> the types defined in this document. > > That was done intentionally. The ones that are experimental are not in this > section 7 list because there is no use-case document for it yet. Maybe the > chairs can explain this better than me. > AFAIR the rationale was that since these types are experimental proposals, with no (or at least not yet) detailed use-case, there is no need to allocate these values now. If new documents will use them, than those documents will require allocation in their IANA section. ciao L. >> I'm happy to discuss my comments if needed, and also review any >> updates to this draft. >> >> Stig > > Let me know about the response where I didn’t make any changes. > > Thanks again, > Dino/Dave/Job > > <draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt> > > <lcaf-rfcdiff.html> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
