Hi Peter, Back in April we indeed did not sent you a specific feedback. Reason is that we received several comments/reviews and batched everything in a new I-D, with sending specific feedback to all. Yet, if you are unsatisfied on how we addressed the issues we certainly need to do more work. Give me some time to go again thoroughly through your first review and I’ll get back to you with a specific feedback. Thanks for your time spent on this document. ciao L. > On 06 Feb 2016, at 04:39, Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > comment. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Document: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: February 5, 2016 > IETF LC End Date: February 5, 2016 > IESG Telechat date: February 18, 2016 > > Summary: This draft has serious issues, described in the review, and needs > to be rethought. [Not ready] > > The draft attempts to specify the framework for the management of > experimental LISP EID sub-prefixes, but really could use some additional > work to flesh out the management aspects that are left unsaid. > > This draft fixes only two minor nits I raised in my review of the -04 > version. Nothing else has been addressed, nor have I received any feedback > on that review. In light of this, I have little new to add. It is possible > that the agreement between the IANA and the RIPE NCC will alleviate the > major concern I had with the draft, but not being privy to that agreement, I > can't make that determination. > > My original review with the unaddressed comments can be found here: > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg11620.html > > >