Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:25:31 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>

    > The draft documents, among other things, use of LISP for l3vpn (S. 4.1)
    > and l2vpn (S. 4.12.2). N either of these appear related to the WG charter

Those are just two minor uses - what about all the other ones?

Anyway, do you have a better suggestion for a WG to use to define a core LISP
namespace?

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:43:06 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>

    > Given that, the WG should not accept the draft, as it defines a whole
    > bunch of code points without any companion document that defines
    > semantics of these code points.

If you're really determined to find something to whine about, I guess maybe we
can just delete those code points for now?

As soon as someone writes an ID which uses them, they can be re-allocated -
and we'll let the IESG worry about which WG to assign that ID to.

	Noel