> P.S.: one nitpick (really small): the document is not using any MUST, SHOULD > etc. language, so references to RFC2119 and the "Requirements Language" > section could be removed. I got this feedback once from ADs - but maybe the > authors just wait if ADs say anything ;-)
The reason being is that the doc is not a protocol specification but an overview of all the protocol specifications in RFC form. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
