Re-, I agree. Still, this needs to be said in the text.
The same comment applies for ACT, .. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com] > Envoyé : vendredi 5 mai 2017 15:19 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Dino Farinacci > Cc : lisp@ietf.org list > Objet : Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03.txt > > With regard to the IANA considerations, there is an action for IANA. > They have to update the table to refer to this document for the relevant > code points. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 5/5/17 2:04 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Dino, > > > > Please see inine. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] > >> Envoyé : jeudi 4 mai 2017 19:58 > >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > >> Cc : Joel M. Halpern; lisp@ietf.org list > >> Objet : Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03.txt > >> > >>> 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. > > > > [Med] I see. Citing RFC5226 is odd then. Either you point to your IANA > section in the document or to RFC8113. > > > >> > >>> - 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. > > [Med] Thanks. > > > >> > >>> 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. > > > > [Med] I'm afraid I don't get this. Unless there is an action that is > required from IANA, please remove that text. > > > >> > >>> 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. > >> > > > > [Med] Thanks. > > > >> I will post new documents now with these changes. > >> > >> Dino > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
