I guess it did. But should it have a normative reference to RFC6830 where type=15 is not documented?
Dino > On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
