Ack. I will have a look on Monday.
Ciao L. > On 18 Apr 2024, at 17:19, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You have to judge that. We do have references that point to ISIS and OSPF. > > Dino > >>> On Apr 18, 2024, at 8:14 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> On 18 Apr 2024, at 16:19, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> LISP geo-location decided to use the encoding format consistent and >>> coordinated with the routing protocols. >>> >> >> Is this clearly state in the document? >> >> L. >> >>> Dino >>> >>>>> On Apr 17, 2024, at 11:59 PM, Padma Pillay-Esnault <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Dino and Alberto >>>> >>>> The Yang Doctor review had comments on Yang -20 draft regarding the >>>> geoloc. >>>> For reference comment from Joe Clark >>>> As to the two questions asked here, I can see some benefit of breaking out >>>> the IANA parts of address-types into a module that they maintain. But in >>>> its current form, I don't know that it makes sense to have them maintain >>>> it. As for geoloc, I do see some overlap, but I am not a LISP expert at >>>> all, so I cannot comment as to whether bringing that whole module in makes >>>> sense or would even work with LISP implementations. That is, it seems >>>> LISP lat and long are expressed in degrees° minutes'seconds" whereas >>>> geoloc does this as a decimal64 from a reference frame. I do feel that >>>> whatever direction is taken, text explaining why geoloc is not used is >>>> useful. >>>> >>>> Per Med's comment on groupings - >>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lJ7jBJzjJNY2P4sQgCcLuSnnzds/ >>>> >>>> Consolidating these comments in a single thread here for resolution and >>>> discussion on the list before the refresh, >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Padma and Luigi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
