I can’t defend the text. As an author it was only put in as a request. And I was coached by many on how it should read.
Why wasn’t this caught earlier? Dino > On Mar 18, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > Assuming this 10.4 is now 7.3 and that we are disucssing the text in 4.1, as > written the text does not make sense > A new document can not specify a preferred value in a section in an existing > document. > > I am not sure what it is trying to say. It mostly seems to be saying > something that is IANA policy (can you request a specific code point from a > registry). > > As best I can tell, it should be removed. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 3/18/18 1:06 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I’ve read 6833bis document. >>> My few comments cab be found inline. >> See comments inline. New draft enclosed with diff file. I’ll wait 6 hours to >> post to give you a chance to look it over. > ... >>>> 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. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
