Hi Dino,
In some protocols that I am aware of, it is usual to state that the variable-length portion in the TLVs/objects is 4-byte aligned. But looking at RFC 8060, I see that LISP does not follow this approach for any of the LCAF and it works just fine without it. I agree with you that no change is required then. Thanks for taking my comment into consideration.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:19 AM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dhruv, can you explain more specifically what you mean by padding? Since any LCAF encoding (even a vendor LCAF) has a length field, the encoding can be the exact number of bytes described by the length. So no padding is required.
Or did you mean something else?
Dino
> On Apr 26, 2022, at 7:49 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <natal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Dhruv,
>
> Thanks for your review! You’re bringing good points.
>
> As per your comment on padding, it’s a good question but I cannot recall right now any padding requirement in other LISP docs. A a quick search for ‘padding' in rfc6833bis and RFC8060 shows not results. Maybe someone else on the list can comment on padding requirements in LISP (if any)?
>
> Also, good point on expanding LISP on first use, we’ll make sure to do so in the revised draft.
>
> Thanks!
> Alberto
>
> From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:03 PM
> To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx <rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 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: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10
>
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I was assigned the reviewer today. I noticed that the IESG ballot is done and
> the document is approved, I am not sure how valuable this review would be but
> anyways...
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review Date: 2022-04-26
> IETF LC End Date: Over
> Intended Status: Experimental
>
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
> before publication.
>
> Comments:
> - The document is simple, clear and straightforward.
>
> Major Issues:
> - No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
> - Is there any padding requirement that should be mentioned for the Internal
> format in alignment with the rest of LISP? - Consider if adding an example in
> the appendix would be useful for a casual reader.
>
> Nits:
> - LISP does not have a * next to it at
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and thus should be
> expanded on first use!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
