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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Revised ballot) Thanks to the authors and IANA for updating the formal name of "https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type"; to be "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types." ** 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). _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
