> Hi Dino, > > I still have comments to this text: > > “Values in the "For Future Assignment" range can be assigned according > to procedures in [RFC5226]. »
Yes it does and it was text added to get RFC6830 published. > - replace RFC5226 with RFC8113. Pointing to RFC5226 does not make sense here. Pointing to 5226 indicates to look in the IANA considerations section. And in that section we make refernece to 8113. > - Your table that summarizes the assigned value includes a “not assigned” > entry. I guess “"For Future Assignment" range” in the text above is referring > to that entry. If you insist to maintain “not assigned” value in your table, > then please use consistent wording in both the table and the text quoted > above. I’ll fix. > And also to this one in Section 7.1. > > “It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Message > Type definitions and that it refers to this document as > well as > [RFC8113] as references.” > > - What is the purpose of this text? What actions are you requiring from IANA? To reflect Joel’s comment. > A minor comment about “This document requests IANA to add it to the LISP > Message Type Registry.” > - The name of the registry is “LISP Packet Types” not “LISP Message Type” Will fix. Thanks. I will post new documents now with these changes. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
