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

["Peter Yee" <[e-mail]>]

No problem, Luigi.  I'll just be happy if my feedback proves helpful.

		-Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 3:19 AM
To: Luigi Iannone
Cc: Peter Yee; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06


> On 08 Feb 2016, at 12:17, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>