> On 18 Apr 2024, at 16:19, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > LISP geo-location decided to use the encoding format consistent and > coordinated with the routing protocols. >
Is this clearly state in the document? L. > Dino > >> On Apr 17, 2024, at 11:59 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Hello Dino and Alberto >> >> The Yang Doctor review had comments on Yang -20 draft regarding the geoloc. >> For reference comment from Joe Clark >> As to the two questions asked here, I can see some benefit of breaking out >> the IANA parts of address-types into a module that they maintain. But in >> its current form, I don't know that it makes sense to have them maintain it. >> As for geoloc, I do see some overlap, but I am not a LISP expert at all, so >> I cannot comment as to whether bringing that whole module in makes sense or >> would even work with LISP implementations. That is, it seems LISP lat and >> long are expressed in degrees° minutes'seconds" whereas geoloc does this as >> a decimal64 from a reference frame. I do feel that whatever direction is >> taken, text explaining why geoloc is not used is useful. >> >> Per Med's comment on groupings - >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lJ7jBJzjJNY2P4sQgCcLuSnnzds/ >> >> Consolidating these comments in a single thread here for resolution and >> discussion on the list before the refresh, >> >> Thanks >> Padma and Luigi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
