I am going to wait for direction from the chairs/AD before making anymore changes. I have posted what I thought was a decent compromise that brought in ideas from various commenters.
Dino > On May 4, 2017, at 11:15 PM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Re-, > > The bis document can update these entries and/or add new entries without > updating RFC8113. Otherwise we would need to update that RFC each time there > is a document asking for a new assignment (5-7 or 9-14)! > > Please add a note to the IANA section to ask IANA to update the references > for these entries to the bis document. > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : lisp [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Dino Farinacci > Envoyé : jeudi 4 mai 2017 20:57 > À : [email protected] list > Objet : [lisp] Do we need a 8113bis? > > 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 > > > <image003.png> > > > > <image004.png> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
