No problem, Luigi. I'll just be happy if my feedback proves helpful. -Peter -----Original Message----- From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:ggx@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 3:19 AM To: Luigi Iannone Cc: Peter Yee; draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 > On 08 Feb 2016, at 12:17, Luigi Iannone <ggx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > The correct sentence is: “without sending specific feedback to all” I should really start to proofread my mails before hitting the send button ;-) ciao L. > 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 >> >> >> >