Hi Alvaro, thanks for the reply. I think everything is clear. I need just one clarification:
> On 11 Sep 2018, at 16:05, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > > On September 11, 2018 at 5:15:38 AM, Luigi Iannone ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: >>> >>> There are several issues in §5.1 (LISP Control Packet Type Allocations) that >>> need to be fixed. I don't think any of them raise up to a DISCUSS, but I >>> would >>> like to see them resolved before publication. >>> >>> §5.1 "defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes for IANA the >>> LISP >>> Type codes assigned by this document". >>> >>> (1) Instructions (or anything directed) to IANA should be in the IANA >>> Considerations section. There isn't even a pointer to this section later on >>> for IANA to look at it. >> >> This can be easily fixed changing the first sentence to: >> >> This section defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes >> for IANA the LISP Type codes assigned by this document (see >> details IANA considerations in Section 11). >> >> What do you think? > > The main point is that is you want IANA to look at this text, then the best > way is to put it in the IANA Considerations section. They may be ok with a > pointer the other way around: from Section 11 to this section (otherwise they > might not notice). > >> >> >> >>> >>> (2) The text seems to imply ("Message type definitions are") that the types >>> are >>> defined here (or at least in rfc6833, which this document Obsoletes), but >>> they >>> are defined in rfc6830, rfc8111 and rfc8113. Please properly identify the >>> source (only the rfc8113 line has a reference). >>> >> >> Would it be sufficient to add a sentence listing the messages that this >> documents re-defines and the original RFC which is obsoleted? > > I just want the text to be clear about what is defined here and what isn’t. > I think that references (like the one in there for rfc8113) would be enough. > >> I think I’ve got now you point. What we should do is not modify section 5.1, is modifying section 11.2. We should update the text and following table: Name Number Defined in ---- ------ ----------- LISP Map-Notify-Ack 5 RFC6833bis We should add there all the code points of messages that are re-defined in this document and ask IANA to update the registry so that the entries point to this document (and not anymore 6830). Did I got it right? Ciao L.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
