Okay, now I understand fully with what you propose. I can go along with it if Albert agrees.
Dino > On Sep 11, 2018, at 3:00 PM, 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
