Here is a diff for -24 that incorporates the changes below and Albert’s changes from Ben’s comments. I will submit today.
Dino
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff-6833bis-24.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (1) s/rfc8113/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis > > (2) §5.1: "Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to > procedures in [RFC8126]." This sentence is out of place because it doesn't > specify which procedure...and the action is already specified in rfc8113bis > anyway. > > (3) s/Not assigned/Unassigned To match what the registry says. > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
