Hi Christer, Luigi,
Thanks for the review Christer. I agree with your comments and with Luigi’s suggestions. We’ll edit the draft to include the feedback in the next iteration.
Thanks!
Alberto
From:
Luigi Iannone <ggx@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:15 AM
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, lisp@xxxxxxxx <lisp@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09
Hi Christer,
Thanks for the review.
As a shepherd I have a couple of comments inline.
> On 11 Apr 2022, at 22:35, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2022-04-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-12
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> The document is well written, and easy to read and understand. However, I do
> have a couple of issues.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Q1:
>
> I do wonder why the document is published as Experimental, however, due to the
> following reasons:
It is experimental because is an update to RFC 8060, which is experimental.
So unless we move that one to standard track I would say that is the right type of RFC.
>
> a)
>
> The document defines usage of the Type value 255.
>
> b)
>
> Section 3 says:
>
> "If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific
> LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
> message and it SHOULD create a log message."
>
> This sounds like an update to LISP.
>
Excellent point. Actually this document updates RFC 8060, and this should be stated in the document.
> c)
>
> Section 3 defines new header fields.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> N/A
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Q2:
>
> Section 1 says:
>
> “The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
> LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP
> deployments.”
>
> Is “allows” the best wording? Where organizations previously disallowed to do
> this?
>
> Would it be more correct to say “defines how organizations can create…”?
Yes, this wording is more correct.
Ciao
L.
>
>
>
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
