Ithink we need to take care with the wording so that we do not introuce
a normative dependence on 6833bis. The wording I saw in your email
looked like it would produce such a dependence.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/2/17 1:58 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Did we? Why can’t it all be independent?
Dino
On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
I had not realized we intended to defer creation of the registry until we
publish 6833bis.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/2/17 1:26 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Mohamed, the statement “This document updates RFC6830.” is too broad and
easily open to misinterpretation. See my suggestion below.
I suggest this wording (and possibly not in the abstract):
This document introduces a new LISP message type so extenstions to the
protocol may be experimented with. The code point is defined in
RFC6833bis in which this document references as well as describes how
the sub-types for the code point are used.
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
