Hi Dhruv,
Thanks again for your review! In the -11 version of the draft [1] we have expanded the LISP acronym on first use, according to your good suggestion.
Please kindly let us know any comment you might have in the new version.
Thanks!
Alberto
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-11
From:
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <natal@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:49 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 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: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10
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
