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

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>