Re: [lisp] #16: map versioning resolution

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

I am sorry, it was a typo. I didn't remove it. I will remove the  
sentence that references the R-bit.

Dino

On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Still (slightly) confused.  Why reference the R bit in the E bit  
> description?  The other two look great.  I understand why the E and  
> N interaction is specified, and appreciate it.
> Joel
>
> Dino Farinacci wrote:
> > > I do not see why, based on this note, this document should mandate  
> > > anything about the relationship of the N and L bits to the R bit.
> > > Everything works if we say nothing about that relationship.
> > Okay, so how about this text:
> >   R: this is the Research bit.  This bit is reserved and it's usage  
> > is
> >      not documented in this specification.
> >   L: this is the Locator-Status-Bits field enabled bit.  When this  
> > bit
> >      is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second 32-bits of  
> > the
> >      LISP header are in use.
> >   N: this is the nonce-present bit.  When this bit is set to 1, the
> >      low-order 24-bits of the first 32-bits of the LISP header  
> > contains
> >      a Nonce.  See section Section 6.3.1 for details.
> >   E: this is the echo-nonce-request bit.  When this bit is set to 1,
> >      the N bit must be 1 and the R bit must be 0.  This bit should be
> >      ignored and has no meaning when the N bit is set to 0.  See
> >      section Section 6.3.1 for details.
> > No other reference to relationships of R, L, and N bit.
> > Converged?
> > Dino