> [LI] Having a look to 6830bis: > Yes, Section 13.2 can be dropped altogether. 6830bis references Section 13.2 > in Section 10 and Section 5.3. Both references can be replaced to a reference > to 6834bis. > As for the last two paragraphs: The very last is the text to be put in > section 5.3. > The second last is actually already present in the security section of > 6834bis. This should be enough, right? > I would just add the sentence “Further security considerations on > Map-Versioning can be found in [6834bis]” in the paragraph mentioning > Map-Versioning in Section 16 “Security Considerations” in 6833bis.
Are you making a comment that 6830bis-37 is not complete? I'm looking at your other email. I don't have context to your commenting. You didn't provide enough detail if you are referring to -37, -38, or -38-2. > For 6833bis: > In Section 5.4 replacing: > > Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value is non-zero, the Map- > Reply sender is informing the ITR what the version number is for > the EID record contained in the Map-Reply. The ETR can allocate > this number internally but MUST coordinate this value with other > ETRs for the site. When this value is 0, there is no versioning > information conveyed. The Map-Version Number can be included in > Map-Request and Map-Register messages. See Map-Versioning > [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for more details. > > With: > > Map-Version Number: 12-bit version number assigned to the EID > record contained in the Map-Reply. See Map-Versioning > [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for more details. > > The above should completely eliminate any duplication. This is in draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-31 and has been submitted. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
