Well, the implementations are out and working. And we said in the latest updates to consider using RFC6040. So not sure we can do much more than that.
Dino > On Sep 24, 2018, at 5:52 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Because they don’t follow RFC6040 and therefore we do something different in > some corner cases. > > > >> Am 22.09.2018 um 06:52 schrieb Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>: >> >>> 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
