> À : Dino Farinacci; Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; gen-...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-
>> rfc8113bis@ietf.org
>> Objet : RE: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>>
>> Re-,
>>
>> Seems we are al
Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; gen-...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-
>> rfc8113bis....@ietf.org
>> Objet : RE: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>>
>> Re-,
>>
>> Seems we are all in agreement.
igine-
>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 00:29
>> À : Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; gen-...@ietf.org;
>> lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis....@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [
draft-ietf-lisp-
> rfc8113bis@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>
> I may be missing something but I don't see how 8113bis can
> logically cite 8113, which it replaces.
>
[Med] The change is for 6833bis NOT 8113bis.
gt;> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>>>> procedures in [RFC8126].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be
;> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>>> procedures in [RFC8126].
>>>>>
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>
>>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards
>>>
andards
>>>> Action [RFC8113].
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Med
>>>>
>>>>> -Message d'origine-
>>>>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
>>>>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembr
113bis....@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
What does fixing in (1) mean?
Dino
On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:51 AM,
wrote:
Hi all,
Brian, whether to maintain the document standalone was discussed by the WG.
You may refer, for example, to the messag
;>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; gen-...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org;
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis@ietf.org
>>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>>>
>>
; À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; gen-...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
>>
>> What does fixing in (1) mean
o Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; Brian E Carpenter; gen-...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis....@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf
De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37
>> À : Joel M. Halpern
>> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; gen-...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-
>> rfc8113bis@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of
> IMHO we just drop the “update 6833bis” and we are fine.
I agree.
Dino
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
e : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 06:37
> À : Joel M. Halpern
> Cc : Brian E Carpenter; gen-...@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-
> rfc8113bis@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bi
Hi,
may be we do not need a state anything with respect of 6833bis.
Looking at the IANA considerations section of both 8113bis and 6833bis, they
just request IANA to rename/allocate something in an existing registry.
In particular, 8113bis does not extend/update nothing in 6833bis.
IMHO we
Mohmad to comment.
Dino
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
> That is the other fix he offered. Just remove the updates tag.
> I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is correct.
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>
That is the other fix he offered. Just remove the updates tag.
I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is correct.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can have more types.
The word
8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can have more
types. The word “update” I always had a problem with because it can be
interpreted as “replacing". Replacing something to fix a problem.
8113 is simply asking for one of the type value codepoint, so there can be
Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me?
Yours,
Joel
On 12/18/18 10:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP specs
to PS.
The reason we did this rather than folding it into
On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP specs
> to PS.
>
> The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / 6833bis is
> that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that needed
> to move to PS
This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP specs
to PS.
The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / 6833bis is
that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that needed
to move to PS along with everything else. It seemed (and is) simpler
21 matches
Mail list logo
