Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christer, thank you for your review and thank you all for the following discussion. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document based on the current revision that addressed the issue Christer identified.

Lars


> On 2022-4-11, at 23:35, 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:
> 
>   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.
> 
>   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…”?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux