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
