> As I said, the simplest solution is to use a different type value. This > allows to still use the old encoding and does not obsoletes implementations > that use it.
You will obsolete implementations if we do that. Which really means you make the spec irrelevant. So I say stay with the same code point. > Option B. This document officially updates 8060, but this means that existing > implementation of the 8060 encoding are not valid anymore. Right. But so much time has passed between from when the lisp-geo spec was published I believe most implementations have done lisp-geo encoding vs RFC 8060. My lispers.net implementation does the lisp-geo encoding with the type defined in the draft which is the same as RFC 8060. > How many implementation of this draft are you aware of? I think cisco and lispers.net. But cisco has to confirm. I think we should do Option C which is do nothing to RFC 8060 and put text in the lisp-geo spec which indicates its encoding takes precedent over RFC 8060 using the same code point and document all implementations have evolved to the lisp-geo spec. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
