Did we? Why can’t it all be independent? Dino
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > I had not realized we intended to defer creation of the registry until we > publish 6833bis. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 2/2/17 1:26 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Mohamed, the statement “This document updates RFC6830.” is too broad and >> easily open to misinterpretation. See my suggestion below. >> >> >> I suggest this wording (and possibly not in the abstract): >> >> This document introduces a new LISP message type so extenstions to the >> protocol may be experimented with. The code point is defined in >> RFC6833bis in which this document references as well as describes how >> the sub-types for the code point are used. >> >> Dino >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
