IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 12 October 2016 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0327912965C; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.398
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT=2.696, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v3FnvaZAyII1; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A61A129659; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id o68so96226187qkf.3; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=DMQ5wLBjYy0dUd8alQtoz0W8VK1RArCRbAD56w9bKdA=; b=mgFfxMabkrg2U1QiT7SDZ6swGTnEWjoSgMNuFp5ejWDxHrQrdeX8WxwSNkvzFadM3s PSzTv3MvN0wweCeFiQNFEDjP5Q1CH+2Eo8GC7yCVfOwD7mYcf4rLBRrOb2OIi7uaOizT V1S3ttgNlG+uCSVwvovnHefDGqiuaoJaFi69ghMJwx94qXSrlDj/UpxUEj/D0+T22RpS wJPOMw6Q+T6Sp8NGCSiXoC+7t85TcquL+a76DyFTCjCfRU5+OTaiYLW8lhrnhU5ewM35 Q+R3ujw186l4EhHPVy9W3N0vxfcubunRBn16tvBTYXaHMkASWwIpyGOnmJDeaMmOyCRz FZSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=DMQ5wLBjYy0dUd8alQtoz0W8VK1RArCRbAD56w9bKdA=; b=Xp7itDMptN39aamchzbx5H1eOAwncRXsJlGEXdBp5NVfaVdSFDvdOW3BFWcIs7NjFW FCQ5w2ITy8Pcc9cikWt8icmtej4D9ZdMTsTVHUaGW5rdbPMAV3Pfbytp67AioKeiZpwg sIq21M7KEKDbP1XOfzo9Jv25EDDz8hLJJSTglT342ANwLNlIaSw4xHda6zBEzDMY/Zrr oIp/oERxIpOrSGAFrGlVeD9GToPuqOnzI17uQMfu6K/5XsNvFxfC8cqgWTwZwMe0kLP2 5cmh/RJyRKP/jTFGISSAws+EQ5Qegq0awFnMJPI0AvPnm1qUXYJnZeULiPfuF6Aimbwd 3FVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RminuDPI86wKMsn/WvIg8E2jmQxSrotlJw5jTdg7iwzROQP0kfpTp7Pw6h+itmAzA==
X-Received: by 10.194.146.195 with SMTP id te3mr3818754wjb.51.1476300498712; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.43.3.137] ([78.108.139.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ya1sm15417675wjb.23.2016.10.12.12.28.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BC6735C8-EA9C-4006-B6DB-2A6AF245F2E0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F955930-531F-4A0E-A90A-530BF1BD232D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:28:15 -0700
In-Reply-To: <00a701d2234d$e20f6780$a62e3680$@akayla.com>
To: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
References: <00a701d2234d$e20f6780$a62e3680$@akayla.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CfPYDSIQcr6tzZBSIhThpmpJnX4>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:28:33 -0000

I am sending one reply to both commenters. Thanks Peter and Suresh for your comments. 

I made changes for all of Suresh’s comments. I made changes for all of Peter’s comments accept for the responses below. Note many of your comments were fixed in a later draft.

I have submitted a -17 version. See diff file enclosed.

> Page 13, RTR RLOC Address definition, 4th sentence: The ability to determine

> the number of RTRs encoded by the value of LCAF length implies a single
> value for AFI = x is required.  If so, why not only use one AFI=x value
> rather than repeating it for each address?  And if there can be different
> AFI = x value, then the number of RTRs that are encoded cannot be determined
> without parsing through each AFI/address pair.

Because each RTR can be from a different address family.

Thanks again,
Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email