Hi, We’ve changed “LISP LCAF Type” to “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types” in the registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters If you notice any other issues, please drop us a line at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. thanks, Amanda Baber IANA Operations Manager From: iesg <[email protected]> on behalf of "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56 AM To: Amanda Baber <[email protected]>, Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT) Understood, thanks a lot for the clarification Amanda. We’ll keep the name “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types” in the vendor-lcaf doc then. Thanks! Alberto From: Amanda Baber <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:05 AM To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]>, Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT) Hi, The registry was created for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22 [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22__;!!PtGJab4!q_OZdVu9w-AgCIsiByLpR1BfdWhd_3xdEXyYvQzsY6FOusKSSZOdU954MNEa3Qr4a0VLgmRu$>, at which point the registry was called “LISP LCAF Type.” It looks like we need to update the name of the registry to match the published RFC. Thanks, Amanda From: iesg <[email protected]> on behalf of "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:21 PM To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT) Hi Roman, Thanks for your review! Regarding the registry name, we took it from the IANA section of RFC 8060 [1] that lists it as "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types". You’re indeed right that the IANA website shows it as “LISP LCAF Type.” I guess here we should follow the IANA website name, right? Thanks! Alberto [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.html#section-7 [rfc-editor.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.html*section-7__;Iw!!PtGJab4!pDhG1N7GEuz8bdOfuO67s2THV5CebLG5ofajnaeeevERS5Kq2CXbfY8Kd5EKpwb8EDmNAAYf$> From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 5:41 AM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT) Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ [ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!PtGJab4!pDhG1N7GEuz8bdOfuO67s2THV5CebLG5ofajnaeeevERS5Kq2CXbfY8Kd5EKpwb8EILorgK8$> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf/__;!!PtGJab4!pDhG1N7GEuz8bdOfuO67s2THV5CebLG5ofajnaeeevERS5Kq2CXbfY8Kd5EKpwb8EA0g4MKx$> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type = 255”). It should read TBD in both places. Suggesting 255, if that is the desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads). ** Section 6. Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in [RFC8060]) as follows: The text here calls the registry the “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types”. That doesn’t appear to be the official name. Examining https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type it appears to be “LISP LCAF Type.”
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
