Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Sun, 18 March 2018 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836D3129C6C for <>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g7xJyTxOjmXc for <>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469F0129C53 for <>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE3E2403F3; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1521398873; bh=btvWX1M2uHoQCEuGOpBgye1m8TKBBcr2AqVBKzV8uQ4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jXVaUV6iMJHbfNdP9l+c87OFFnSYUw0SaRONU8vKv83gTROVMtjxpSCYcl+Z59HK2 Idrl8/7Zvc1tkORKuhbMwbdbwvP9MnpFlOU68vEX7c7tjOTUpHLvZGY91+3E8xsOSe K/WleNQwcCpTlJeF4nu/W2U7EhCYeMv37fXvGNX8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5217924034A; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dino Farinacci <>, Luigi Iannone <>
Cc: " list" <>
References: <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:47:50 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 18:47:55 -0000

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.


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.