> That's not really what I had in mind. RFC6280 has considerations that apply > do the design of protocols that can transfer location objects, not just their > use or implementation. My question was whether the working group had > considered whether they apply to this document. I'm not saying that they do; > I am not an expert on lisp, and maybe the this data doesn't get sent or used > in a way that matters from the perspective of RFC 6280. But I would hope that > the working group has or will make an informed decision about that.
We, the LISP WG, had not look at RFC6280 considerations. But the draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01.txt draft is the use-case document for the LCAF type. Since this draft has not been made into a working group draft we have more time to look into this, if it becomes a working group draft. Any comments chairs? Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp