Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: 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/ 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-6834bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- #1 map-version rollover is defined (to skip the 0 version) but I also see: The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number greater (i.e., newer) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. Since the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map- Version number of its mapping is the correct one This would imply rollover to a smaller number is not expected to occur ? #2 MUST NOT or SHOULD ? Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. This sentence seems to contradict itself. I would turn the SHOULD into a MUST _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
