[lisp] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 27 April 2022 12:16 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A42C2C33A5; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 05:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, ggx@gigix.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.0.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <165106176167.2307.4413991388236579405@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 05:16:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3YFvKbH6xRJ58BxbqtAAAf85cGc>
Subject: [lisp] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:16:01 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: 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-vendor-lcaf/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Revised ballot) Thanks to the authors and IANA for updating the formal name of "https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type" to be "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types." ** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type = 255”). It should read TBD in both places. Suggesting 255, if that is the desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads).
- [lisp] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker