Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-12: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The shepherd writeup says: > It is the proper type of RFC since it provides updates to RFC 6834 Locator/ID > Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning, which was an experimental document. I don't follow. Only a Proposed Standard can update an Experimental? The SHOULD at the top of sections 7.1 and 7.2 are curious. Does the protocol interoperate properly if both of those Map-Version checks are skipped, which the SHOULD allows in each case? I would suggest including some guidance around when an implementation might legitimately choose not to do them. Or should these be MUSTs or MAYs instead? _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
