Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09

["Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer, Luigi,

Thanks for the review Christer. I agree with your comments and with Luigi’s suggestions. We’ll edit the draft to include the feedback in the next iteration.

Thanks!
Alberto

From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:15 AM
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>rg>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09
Hi Christer,

Thanks for the review.

As a shepherd I have a couple of comments inline.

> On 11 Apr 2022, at 22:35, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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:

It is experimental because is an update to RFC 8060, which is experimental.
So unless we move that one to standard track I would say that is the right type of RFC.


>
>   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.
>

Excellent point. Actually this document updates RFC 8060, and this should be stated in the document.


>   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…”?

Yes, this wording is more correct.

Ciao

L.




>
>
>