Are you saying the latest diff file I sent is fine? Dino
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
