> I saw that you will mirror the clarification provided by Luigi in the doc. > Assuming that text makes it to the draft, I think that we can consider that > part of the DISUCSS closed.
I will add to spec tomorrow. > For the pending one, I'm afraid some text is needed to motivate deviations > from the structure in RFC9179. What I'm saying on this specific point is > exactly the same I already shard with the WG back in 2023: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lJ7jBJzjJNY2P4sQgCcLuSnnzds/. I > see there was an action on this specific point in IETF#117: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-117-lisp/. I appreciate the Chairs > sought for more advice on the specific point > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-yang-20-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2023-11-27/; > see last part of the review). Since your comments are about encoding geo coordinates in yang models, changes are required to draft-ietf-lisp-yang-22 (which has expired by the way). This was my response when you raised the comment and hence why I didn’t take any action in draft-ietf-lisp-geo. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
