> > My non-discuss comments have been addressed. TY > > My discuss comments, augmented by my message on 2 June still stand as > unaddressed by draft v18.
I believe I either fixed what you wanted or responded answering your questions. So I don't know what more I can do. Tell me which ones you can't agree on. Others are okay with referencing the expired drafts that might become actice drafts again. There is no expired draft in section 4.2. The mapping system operation is discussed in other drafts that carry all kinds of other LCAF data. This draft is simply adding a new type of LCAF data. So I don't know what more I can do. Please advise. Dino > > Deb > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:01 AM Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > Hi Deb, > > text has been added and we are now to revision -18: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-geo-18 > > Can you check whether all of your concerns are addressed? > > Thanks > > L. > >> On 13 Jun 2025, at 19:03, Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The text Luigi proposes ('this document....) is fine. TY. >> >> Deb >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:02 PM Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > 1. As for RFC2026: The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a >> > specification that >> > is part of some research or development effort. >> > >> > This document is part of a development effort to include geo-coordinates >> > in LISP. Is not part of an “experiment", as not all experimental RFC are >> > necessarily part of an experiment. It is about the maturity level of the >> > technology. >> >> If Deb is okay with this text, I will add to document. >> >> > 2. The history of LISP. >> > >> > Long story short, LISP was born as a big experiment and the WG chartered >> > only to produce informational and experimental documents. With the >> > deployment experience gathered through the years, the LISP WG has >> > rechartered to move the most mature pieces of LISP to STD Track, but not >> > all the pieces. >> >> This is informational for Deb. And I think everyone agrees something like >> this shouldn't go in this specific document. Otherwise it would need to go >> in every LISP document. Please ack or nak this Deb and other reviewers. >> >> Dino >> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
