> However, I totally disagree with your comment on providing details that are > not implemented. If they are not implemented correctly, it might even be more > important to spell them out in this document, so implementors have chance to > update their (future) implementation to do the correct thing. Having deployed > implementations that are non standard-conform always happens and in this case > it is probably not specifically problematic as it doesn’t impact > interoperability. However, it is important though that the spec is correct.
And why do you think they are implemented incorrectly? Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
