Hi Dino,
I still have comments to this text:
“Values in the "For Future Assignment" range can be assigned according
to procedures in [RFC5226]. »
- replace RFC5226 with RFC8113. Pointing to RFC5226 does not make sense here.
- Your table that summarizes the assigned value includes a “not assigned”
entry. I guess “"For Future Assignment" range” in the text above is referring
to that entry. If you insist to maintain “not assigned” value in your table,
then please use consistent wording in both the table and the text quoted above.
And also to this one in Section 7.1.
“It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Message
Type definitions and that it refers to this document as
well as
[RFC8113] as references.”
- What is the purpose of this text? What actions are you requiring from IANA?
A minor comment about “This document requests IANA to add it to the LISP
Message Type Registry.”
- The name of the registry is “LISP Packet Types” not “LISP Message Type”
Thank you.
Cheers,
Med
De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
Envoyé : mercredi 3 mai 2017 19:19
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : Joel M. Halpern; [email protected] list
Objet : Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03.txt
> 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.
See new update to include comment above. I’ll post tomorrow (Thu noon PDT time)
if there are no objections.
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
