Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06

"Peter Yee" <> Sat, 06 February 2016 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B771A89AF; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:39:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dSKbb9E6vZqy; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15F51A89AA; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spectre ([]) by with id Erf11s0061huGat01rf1Gy; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:39:01 -0700
From: "Peter Yee" <>
To: <>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:39:07 -0800
Message-ID: <004001d1608f$ef60e6b0$ce22b410$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdFgjmkjHC1z4BgTSpmfPQlzpq0RXA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 03:39:04 -0000

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

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: