Ben, given that this geo LCAF is experimental, would it suffice to put
in the LCAF document a note that any specification for using this form
of LCAF needs to discuss RFC 6280 considerations?
On 10/17/16 4:21 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
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?
lisp mailing list