Hi Benjamin,
On 08/01/2019 18:38 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
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.
I have published a version 23 with the above text.
thanks,
Peter
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
