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

From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:35:34 -0700

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…”?