Dear WG:
We're working on rfc8060bis -- the main objective is to change the status
to Proposed Standards (from Experimental). Please review the latest
version [1].
The change log is at the end of the draft [2]. Note that the changes so
far have been primarily focused on reordering, and removing mentions of
Geo-Coordinates (draft-ietf-lisp-geo deprecates Type 5).
Table 1 [3] includes the complete list of LCAF Types defined in rfc8060,
where some were characterized as "unapproved" and not included in the
registry [4]. This message is to poll the WG about implementations of
these "unapproved" LCAF Types:
Type 4: Application Data
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-convey-application-specific
Type 6: Opaque Key
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-generic-database-mapping-lo
Type 8: Nonce Locator
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-petr-admission-control-func
Type 14: JSON Data Model
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-data-model-encoding
Type 15: Key/Value Address Pair
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-encoding-key-value-address-
Type 16: Encapsulation Format
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-multiple-data-planes
The WG needs to decide whether these values should be added to the IANA
registry or deprecated.
If you know of an implementation or deployment of these LCAF Types, please
let us know.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-change-log
[3]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-02#name-lisp-canonical-address-forma
[4]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
