Hi Alvaro, Thanks for reviewing the new version! Your comments seem fine to me, we’ll add all your suggestions along with the DE text suggested by Med to -11.
Just one comment regarding the reference to 6830. It is there since 9301 does not suggest any default TTL for mappings, but 6830 does (24-hour) and the value is commonly used in deployments. Let me know if it would fine to keep the reference to 6830 in Informative, otherwise no problem in removing it. Thanks! Alberto From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:40 PM To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Vina Ermagan <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Fabio Maino (fmaino) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, Albert Cabellos <[email protected]>, Stefano Secci <[email protected]>, Johnson Leong <[email protected]>, JACQUENET Christian INNOV/NET <[email protected]>, Sharon Barkai <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 On November 6, 2022 at 5:32:47 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal wrote: Alberto: Hi! I've looked at your replies and the diffs using the version -10. I still have a couple of comments in-line -- mostly about the instructions to the designated experts. Please move the text in §8 (Sample PubSub Deployment Experiences) to an appendix and update the reference to rfc6830. I am starting the IETF Last Call. I know that you still have to address Padma's comments -- you can treat them (and mine) as LC comments. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
