Dino/Alvaro/etc
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 6:16 PM Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your review. See comments inline. Alvaro, see response for last > comment that is related to 8060bis. > > Draft revision -13 has been submitted. > > > In the IANA Considerations, the second paragrapgh in this section should > be moved > > after the table. For example: > > > > > > Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a > > value (17 is suggested) for the Geo-Coordinates LCAF from the "LISP > > Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in [RFC8060] > > as follows: > > > > +=========+=====================+============================+ > > | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference | > > +=========+=====================+============================+ > > | 17 | Geo-Location | [This Document], Section 5 | > > +---------+---------------------+----------------------------+ > > > > Table 1: Geo-Location LCAF Type Assignment > > > > This document updates the format of LCAF Type value 5 in > > [RFC8060], IANA is asked to mark type value 5 as "Deprecated". > > Made change. > > > RFC8060 doesn't really mention how to deal with deprecated entries to > the > > registry, I suggest some slight changes to the text here. > > I think this should go into RFC8060. We are doing an update to RFC8060 > called RFC8060bis where we should add this sort of text. Note that Alvaro > is championing this effort. > > Agree with updating RFC860. Also, this sounds like a great plan (Put-Alvaro-To-Work) ! thanks tim Thanks, > Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
