perfect. thanks Dino,
Fabio Sent with OOR.Mobile (OpenOverlayRouter.org) -------- Original message -------- From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> Date: 10/24/16 10:58 AM (GMT-08:00) To: "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <[email protected]> Cc: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)" <[email protected]>, Albert Cabellos <[email protected]>, Damien Saucez <[email protected]>, [email protected], LISP mailing list list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP-SEC review (finally) >> 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
