Hi Dino, Looks good to me. Thank you.
Cheers, Med De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : mardi 9 mai 2017 19:45 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : [email protected] list Objet : Re: [lisp] Do we need a 8113bis? > Hi Dino, > > Please see inline. Thanks for the quick feedback. See new diff file enclosed. > Cheers, > Med > > De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : samedi 6 mai 2017 20:28 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> list > Objet : Re: [lisp] Do we need a 8113bis? > > Here is the proposed changes to rfc6833bis to reflect the enclosed comments. > Please let me know if these changes are acceptable. > > [Med] Thank you for handling this. Two minor typos in 7.2: > > · s/New ACT values an be allocated/New ACT values can be allocated Changed/fixed. > · The document changes the name of ACT code 3 from “Drop” to > “Drop/No-Reason”. The text should be updated accordingly. Ack. Fixed. > I am not sure if we should delete the Address Type Registry. Maybe it shoudl > be stated that all address types use values from the AFI Registry. Comments? > > [Med] I do think deleting the “LISP Address Type Codes” registry is the right > approach here. IMO, there is no need to add new text. The specification is > clear enough about address type values (see 4.1): > > All LISP control-plane messages use Address Family Identifiers (AFI) > [AFI] or LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] formats to > encode either fixed or variable length addresses. I won’t make any change from what we have right now. Leaves time for discussion. Thanks, Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
