Hi

Thanks for the help. I was suggesting to change the references from
6830/6833 to 6830bis/6833bis, not to speed it up.

If it is doable to wait for the bis documents and then change the
references to the bis versions then I´m all for it.

Albert

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:01 AM BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If we want to get lisp-intro done now, we should leave the reference to 
> RFC6830. If change to the bis, we need to wait until they are published as 
> they also would be listed normatively.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:14 PM
> To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[email protected]>
> Cc: Albert Cabellos <[email protected]>; [email protected] list 
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16: (with COMMENT)
>
> > I don’t see lisp-sec as essential to implementing lisp-intro. I don’t know 
> > why it was listed as normative? To me, it is providing additional 
> > information.
>
> I agree LISP-SEC is additional information for an introductory document. You 
> bring up a good point.
>
> > If the working group agrees, I can check with the RFC-Editor if can move 
> > lisp-security to informative. I think the change will only need author and 
> > AD approval. Does anyone have any concerns? Or is lisp-security “almost 
> > done” and should continue to wait?
>
> I agree with your proposal. But have another question. If we update the 
> lisp-intro to move this reference to Informative, do you at the same time 
> change all occurences of 6830/6833 to the bis document equivalents or do you 
> want to push lisp-intro through?
>
> I would say go for the latter since the information in 6830/6833 has not 
> changed when shuffling sections around into 6830bis/6833bis. So Albert, the 
> information in RFC6830 is not obsoleted but the document may be.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Dino

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to