Re: [lisp] Draft LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases

> P.s. > > Just noticed that this document proposes an encoding which is not the same as > the one in RFC 8060 but use the same type number. That is right, we chose a format consistent with the IGPs so RFC8060 has to updated. I made this clear when the change was made. Since so much time passe

[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-geo-04.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lisp-geo-04.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) WG of the IETF. Title: LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases Author: Dino Farinacci Name:draft-ietf-lisp-geo-04.txt Pages: 14 Dates: 2024-04-22 Abstract:

[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-te-15.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lisp-te-15.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) WG of the IETF. Title: LISP Traffic Engineering Authors: Dino Farinacci Michael Kowal Parantap Lahiri Name:draft-ietf-lisp-te-15.txt P

Re: [lisp] Draft LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases

P.s. Just noticed that this document proposes an encoding which is not the same as the one in RFC 8060 but use the same type number. This is not possible. The best solution would be to use a different type number. Ciao L. > On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:23, Luigi Iannone wrote: > > Dino, > > You

Re: [lisp] Draft LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases

Dino, You did put a reference to other protocols in the acknowledgement section. This is not enough. You should put a sentence like: The encoding format is consistent with the encoding used in other routing protocols, namely: OSPF [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-yang-21.txt

Hi Padma, Thanks for the heads up. Yes, we will be addressing Joe’s comments in a subsequent version of the draft. Thanks, Alberto From: Padma Pillay-Esnault Date: Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 8:14 AM To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) , draft-ietf-lisp-y...@ietf.org Cc: lisp@ietf.org , lisp