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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for addressing my comments, and for explaining the reason for Experimental :)

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> 
Sent: tiistai 12. huhtikuuta 2022 10.14
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [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.




> 
> 
>