Hi, two quick comments inline.
> On 11 Sep 2018, at 20:13, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 3) Given the following statement: >> "Note that while this document assumes a LISP-ALT database mapping >> infrastructure to illustrate certain aspects of Map-Server and Map- >> Resolver operation..." >> it seems that RFC6836 should be a normative reference, as it might not be >> possible to understand all details explained in this doc with knowing ALT. > > I would like the lisp-chairs and/or Deborah to comment on this. > IMO We can completely delete that sentence. The documents does a pretty good job to talk in general terms about the mapping system and the use of its front-end Map-Servers/Map-Resolvers. In the few cases where something specific to ALT and DDT can be said the document actually does it. >> 4) Further I would also think that I-D.ietf-lisp-mn and I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub >> should be normative references as the meaning of the respective bits it not >> further specified in this doc. Or can these bits just be ignored if >> I-D.ietf-lisp-mn and I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub are not implemented? If so that >> should be stated. > > I would like the lisp-chairs and/or Deborah to comment on this. > Those bits can be ignored if an implementer choses not to support those mechanisms. Hence, the documents do not really need to be normative. Ciao L. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
