I am not following your reasoning.
I gather you decided to change the encoding to match some other work.
But you chose not to use a different code point when you did so. You
simply changed the meaning, without updating the published RFC.
Sorry, that is squatting on and misusing a code point. The correct
remedy is for the squatter to move to use a different code point.
Even if you think there are no implementations of the code point from
the RFC. (Which would be very hard to know, since no, you don't consult
to all the implementors.)
Yours,
Joel
On 4/26/2024 4:40 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
As for the implementations… more than the number of implementations what really
matters is the deployments.
If this truly matters …
In the lack of these conditions the only reasonable action IMO is to use a
different type value.
… then you made a contradiction.
You don't want to change the type at all to respect the implementations.
So that means lisp-geo stays the same and you either (1) ignore RFC 8060 or (2)
change type in RFC 8060, should be our action. That is the simpliest solution
without more disruption.
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
