> 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
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to