On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 05:58:55PM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > On 08/01/2019 17:16 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > > > Well, there's a few options, and I don't want to try to dictate my > > preferences onto your document. What seems simplest to me would be to just > > bite the bullet and establish an IANA registry for these AF values, but if > > you wanted to do something else like saying that they are "beyond the scope > > of this specification but may occur in future standards-track work" that > > would also be fine. I'm just trying to avoid some reader seeing "beyond > > the scope of this specification" and thinking they can do whatever they > > want and pick their own codepoint value to squat on. > > would this be fine with you: > > > "Prefix encoding for other address families is beyond the scope > of this specification. Other address families may be defined in the > future standard-track IETF specifications."
Yes, with or without adding "Prefix encoding for" to the start of the second sentence; please go ahead and I will clear. Thank you again for your patience working through this, and my apologies for the delays. -Benjamin _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
