Thanks for the review Erik! Not sure what would be the preferred way to proceed here, since PubSub is a nice to have but not required optimization of RFC 9301. Would like to hear what others think.
Thanks, Alberto From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Date: Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 9:35 AM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-pub...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-lisp-pub...@ietf.org>, lisp-cha...@ietf.org <lisp-cha...@ietf.org>, lisp@ietf.org <lisp@ietf.org>, g...@gigix.net <g...@gigix.net>, g...@gigix.net <g...@gigix.net> Subject: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11: (with COMMENT) Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11: 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-pubsub/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11 CC @ekline ## Comments * Should this update RFC 9301 (since it's modifying the Map-Request)? (debated making this a trivial-to-fix DISCUSS)
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
