Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type = 255”). It should read TBD in both places. Suggesting 255, if that is the desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads). ** Section 6. Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in [RFC8060]) as follows: The text here calls the registry the “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types”. That doesn’t appear to be the official name. Examining https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type it appears to be “LISP LCAF Type.” _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
