Hi Alvaro,
I am not modifying rfc7385 but rather trying to maintain backward/forward
compatibility with it. The reason, I am defining additional “experimental" and
“reserved” code points, is to maintain backward/forward compatibility with the
rfc7385 code points. The new “experimental” and “res
I was referring to this document being marked as Updating rfc7385.
In any case, that works for me.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On 8/22/17, 10:41 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
I am not modifying rfc7385 but rather trying to maintain backward/forward
compatibili
Well, this RFC only changes the “unassigned” code points outlined in rfc7385
which in turn is already folded into IANA assignments. It does not changes any
of the existing code points assignments for tunnel types, experimental, and
reserved mentioned in rfc7385. So, as long as we update the IAN
Hi Rob,
I’m fine with simplifying (even if the resultant pattern is much less
impressive ;^). I’ve copied the BESS WG to see if there are any objections.
Thanks,
Acee
From: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)"
mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>
Date: Monday, August 21, 2017 at 11:14 AM
