I am not sure if we should make this distinction. What does the WG think? Because fields marked “reserved” are obviously unassigned and don’t know if they will be assigned in the future.
So I am not sure how helpful in making the distinction. Dino > On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:44 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Dino, all, > > Apologies for raising this late easy to fix comment: > > RFC8126 says the following: > > Unassigned: Not currently assigned, and available for assignment > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > via documented procedures. While it's generally clear that > any values that are not registered are unassigned and > available for assignment, it is sometimes useful to > explicitly specify that situation. Note that this is > distinctly different from "Reserved". > > Reserved: Not assigned and not available for assignment. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Reserved values are held for special uses, such as to extend > the namespace when it becomes exhausted. "Reserved" is also > sometimes used to designate values that had been assigned > but are no longer in use, keeping them set aside as long as > other unassigned values are available. Note that this is > distinctly different from "Unassigned". > > This is well handled in Section 5.1, but not in other sections which are > using Reserved instead of Unassigned as per RFC8126. > > It would be appropriate to update the text accordingly. Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
