IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 18 March 2018 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2910E12AAB6 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JLfD83zNvHVV for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE228120727 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3A7240765; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1521406516; bh=Z0YfTOj4P3rjQWIfDuI2EP3yyY3b2DKcOmHFdtboSsI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=KNBvhRuLbnWNDHZmCWx622wOg8zNFEkRTqae4M4BrzPQxgahdePyc+goCeS4XPo2m ZMMBLW/Z+Ljg8u0fpoGx2u8CAwpWmv/CXpy1uS3wVrY4tnPdxfuSxCsCvNHjkv1r4n zGWQgGQyfB3ssE+1Htvt2x2kUk5h2WPDUp6LniHc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from dhcp-913f.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:38e6:93ee:359f:1355]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05FA524034A; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <B6E99388-F4B4-4980-B1F7-3351B4889AB4@gigix.net> <7E37C3CA-3D38-40DC-9162-D2477F8B8412@gmail.com> <05052a56-f6fd-b218-3a06-c516b01a08a8@joelhalpern.com> <93CBA389-8182-436A-9946-D5BD8C9F721C@gmail.com> <7205ee6c-f8a0-b1ce-5d33-8957cbc5a841@joelhalpern.com> <98134359-C621-4F4E-A476-AFA5CA016C24@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <918956dc-e9e2-1150-5df1-d5b7b121e964@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:55:14 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <98134359-C621-4F4E-A476-AFA5CA016C24@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/tW6kiDIxNEbzV_2NbUupCDCVe9U>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:55:18 -0000

The last diff I can find in my email from you (which may not be the last 
diff) still has the text that "Documents that request for a new LISP 
packet type MAY indicate a prefrred value in section 10.4."

What Luigi had suggested was:
   Documents that request for a new LISP packet type MAY indicate
   a preferred value.

That fix works for me.  Leaving it saying something about section 10.4 
is incorrect.

And while it is useful to understand how mistakes were made in order to 
avoid repeating them, I am not going to agonize over how we missed this 
broken language.

Yours,
Joel

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status