Hi Dino, thanks for the changes. For me is all good, except the two following points:
>> >>> Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could cache >>> responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache management >>> will need to be resolved so that doing so will be reliable and >>> practical. As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will operate only in >>> a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding Encapsulated Map >>> Requests received from ITRs. Any specification of caching >>> functionality is left for future work. >>> >> s/left for future work/ out of the scope of this document/ >> You do not agree with this suggestion? Sounds more neutral to me. > >>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to >>> procedures in [RFC8126]. Documents that request for a new LISP >>> packet type MAY indicate a preferred value in Section 10.4. >>> >> Don’t understand the “in Section 10.4” part. Should be deleted. > > This was added when we were writing draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana (RFC8113). It > was a request from someone (not Mohammad) I think. Didn’t change. I am not against the sentence, is just the "Section 10.4” part, why should a document indicate a preference in a section 10.4????? If you change the sentence to: Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to procedures in [RFC8126]. Documents that request for a new LISP packet type MAY indicate a preferred value. That makes more sens to me. Ciao L. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
