Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Are you saying the latest diff file I sent is fine?

Dino

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> No idea how it got to this state.  Luigi's suggested fix suffices.
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
>> On 3/18/18 4:42 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> I can’t defend the text. As an author it was only put in as a request. And I was coached by many on how it should read.
>> Why wasn’t this caught earlier?
>> Dino
>>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Assuming this 10.4 is now 7.3 and that we are disucssing the text in 4.1, as written the text does not make sense
>>> A new document can not specify a preferred value in a section in an existing document.
>>> 
>>> I am not sure what it is trying to say.  It mostly seems to be saying something that is IANA policy (can you request a specific code point from a registry).
>>> 
>>> As best I can tell, it should be removed.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>> 
>>> On 3/18/18 1:06 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ve read 6833bis document.
>>>>> My few comments cab be found inline.
>>>> See comments inline. New draft enclosed with diff file. I’ll wait 6 hours to post to give you a chance to look it over.
>>> ...
>>>>>>    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.