That seems reasonable for an experimental RFC. If someday this gets
promoted to standards track, we would probably want to readdress it.
(The fact that this is experimental is the reason my comment was a
comment, rather than a discuss. I probably should have mentioned that.)
On 17 Oct 2016, at 21:17, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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