No idea how it got to this state. Luigi's suggested fix suffices.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/18/18 4:42 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
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
