Can you find an on-list email where such a conclusion was reached. That
would certainly explain your choice.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/26/2024 5:15 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
I gather you decided to change the encoding to match some other work. But you
chose not to use a different code point when you did so. You simply changed
the meaning, without updating the published RFC.
We did not change the code point because it was decided by the working group,
as I recall, that we could modify RFC 8060 with the new format from lisp-geo.
Sorry, that is squatting on and misusing a code point. The correct remedy is
for the squatter to move to use a different code point. Even if you think
there are no implementations of the code point from the RFC. (Which would be
very hard to know, since no, you don't consult to all the implementors.)
This was so long ago, but we asked, and I for one, thought that was the
decision. And I believe, that cisco went the same route as my implementation.
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
