Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

FYI, I did have that text in there:

    <t> Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could             
    cache responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache            
    management will need to be resolved so that doing so will be                
    reliable and practical. As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will           
    operate only in a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding            
    Encapsulated Map Requests received from ITRs.  Any specification            
    of caching functionality is out of scope for this document.</t>

Are you looking in the wrong place?

Dino


> On Mar 18, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dino,
> 
> thanks for the changes. For me is all good, except the two following points:
> 
>>> 
>>>>  Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could cache
>>>>  responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache management
>>>>  will need to be resolved so that doing so will be reliable and
>>>>  practical.  As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will operate only in
>>>>  a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding Encapsulated Map
>>>>  Requests received from ITRs.  Any specification of caching
>>>>  functionality is left for future work.
>>>> 
>>> s/left for future work/ out of the scope of this document/
>>> 
> 
> You do not agree with this suggestion? Sounds more neutral to me.
> 
>> 
>>>>  Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>>>>  procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP
>>>>  packet type MAY indicate a preferred value in Section 10.4.
>>>> 
>>> Don’t understand the “in Section 10.4” part. Should be deleted.
>> 
>> This was added when we were writing draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana (RFC8113). It was a request from someone (not Mohammad) I think. Didn’t change.
> 
> I am not against the sentence, is just the "Section 10.4” part, why should a document indicate a preference in a section 10.4?????
> If you change the sentence to:
> 
> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
>  procedures in [RFC8126].  Documents that request for a new LISP
>  packet type MAY indicate a preferred value.
> 
> 
> That makes more sens to me.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> L.
> 
> 
>