>>>> >>>> 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.
I didn’t disagree. I think I missed it. Will fix. > >> >>>> 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. Fine with me. I’ll change. Should I submit the new draft now? Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
