I will post at noon GMT if there are no objections. Dino
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) <vimor...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > 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
