I can go along with this thinking and actually agree. Thanks, Dino
> On May 4, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > (speaking personally) > I would think that RFC 6830bis and RFC 6833bis can update the relevant > registry entries. > Whether that means they formally update RFC 8113 or not is a detail we can > determine later. Registries can get changed, updated, etc. That is why we > have registries. > > Yours, > Joel > >> On 5/4/17 2:57 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Since the reference in RFC8113 points to RFC6830 for Packet Type >> definitions and we are moving them from RFC6830 to RFC6833bis for the >> data-plane/control-plane document separation effort, should we not have >> a RFC8113bis that points to RFC6883bis? >> >> And then RFC8113bis can put in the updated list from RFC6833bis. Comments? >> >> 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
