I think the new text is much better, unambiguous and addresses all concerns.
Thanks Dino, -v > On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:29 AM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Could I not do the above even if the EID-prefix DID NOT EXIST? Or are we >> restricting any application of policy only to LISP EID-prefixes, and not to >> non-LISP prefixes? > > No, it would be either. > >> The map-replies suggested in the new text would effectively be NMRs, >> correct? i.e. Map-replies with empty locator sets and the ACT bits set. > > The definition of a Negative Map-Reply is one with a empty RLOC-set. I will > make that more clear in the definition and the description on how to return > different actions. > >> If that is the intent, maybe we need to revise the definitions for NMR and >> ACT as I think right now there is some inconsistency/contradiction: >> >> a) NMR definition - Issued in response to queries only for EIDs that DO NOT >> EXIST >> b) ACT bits specification - for use in NMRs ONLY >> c) New text describing how the ACT bits are used to specify forwarding >> behavior for EIDs that DO EXIST > > Agree 100%. See new diff file. > >> So NMRs are exclusive to non-existent or non-registered EIDs (a) and ACT >> bits are exclusive to NMRs (b). Yet (c) implies that NMRs will be used for >> EIDs that DO EXIST. So (c) contradicts (a). > > No, not really. “Exist” is too general a term. We should say “not > registered”. > > Let me know if new text is better. > > Thanks, > Dino > > <rfcdiff.html> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
