>> Why are you re-defining ECM? >> You do not specify other packets, e.g., Map-Reply, so why ECM? >> I would drop it. > > It is not defined in the Definitions section of 6830. One would need to go > through the body of 6830 to find it. > > I'll drop it, but we need to make sure that ECM gets into the definition > section of 6830bis. > > Albert: are you looking into that document? Can you take care of this?
>From the Berlin presentation, we had planned to put all control-plane messages >in 6833bis and did plan to include all flags (as well as the S-bit in the ECM >header). So we got this covered. In 6833bis we can refer to lisp-sec if we can progress it sooner than 6833bis. And from a current perspective, it is looking that way. Comments? Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
