Great, I’ll post new version today. Dino
> On May 9, 2017, at 10:23 PM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] 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
