> Hi Dino, > > This is better. Thanks. > > I would remove the “Not Assigned” from the table because your introduction > text is about “codes assigned by this document”. > I would add a note for asking IANA to formally assign type 5.
I will add text to new 7.1 section I added. > BTW, did you considered to use type code 4 for both Map-Notify and > Map-Notify-Ack given that both messages have the same format and content? > This is doable by using a reserved bit as follows: We did not. But it is too late. There are implementations that already exist that use type 5. Also note, the Map-Register has the same format. In fact, all EID records in Map-Register, Map-Notiy, Map-Notify-Ack, and Map-Reply are the same. Ditto for RLOC-records. That is for using common parsing code in implementations. Dino > > OLD: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Type=4/5| Reserved | Record Count | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > NEW: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Type=4 |A| Reserved | Record Count | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > A (Ack-bit): MUST be set to 0 for Map-Notify and to 1 for Map-Notify-Ack. > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
