[lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 29 March 2022 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC2F3A1B78; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 AYmdm1IvUssv; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (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 B05B03A07B5; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id j18so26189848wrd.6; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2+Rlb720OoSXtyu/ohsSn3jbKoZGaGFzWtB+iZmQz7c=; b=mI/uWnh333GJZPSWzxVoy7BdpJKTa5j4kDV66l/JiDNKf0a8Ox5hT4Bak7KNnG7Rrt kCGcMIrxg9RHfM5b+H9iKY+EcYie66TCc2kIn8/PVC5XYpgGa071CvsRGLFj8kHT14x6 mhMdVpnt8KD/kfslWZzcfVprTP5V1LtbpjKfEc9RczHNtA66o1uLflDb3iIsvRHegNys A2YS2r+/Rde00dLvrNZi1Mb+itXVtaruXlxMoZTLHzGGWK5aha9DlPQC4SIv5Q0HuI+N DfFlyrTEvYhJw2w6/MKAGQyXJFO8aVj3qKQAORiYIZlLD+IStu2kfrZNdHASv/nXZ4/g DX0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2+Rlb720OoSXtyu/ohsSn3jbKoZGaGFzWtB+iZmQz7c=; b=W/dxtMb2lAKMi4UUCxAg+13GbiZrPmYwZqBZmgQ+zBFqC5laYa7ub+PsjhYq54/MDg 0/KVjm3+QxrGUiMLjzJcfFd4wkyXNjYNHQElo8d0GdYAt9Q/OpoEK/Y7zxd2ukzcoTQZ nCpFxee1VX2dZdKwVBntQwR1PxRZAJ6x9Z+7Uhmk/Scob5LlDu8JrVbOvQg9BLSjxwLA uaSRdyTNYzEqwUU0DSTL/2Dn6UgmdW6bQQBSgvbSanZMcQJL/iHGY9kAtWbglZlZ4mF6 Wh6UDhKArXoYfgbQ7FcN9nP+tJZE/XSdpR+2jKeUO3YETGT1gXoNl7UBkzFHunAV+OhM YTTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/+pO2stejKqYMUCB3JaWKiEXYsph7JppOyVaFIDM0JR5hL8mi WOI1YIBX/Cpi77gCzLX/rRB9ZrsBXzRwXp7N0+R3snScAkg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0G0vOdQzi/ZHixXAlfX7rDd9V/ZqnCIcibXMAe8dat+iR3sgh6uWaGgnJV+zABXW7uheTjUhU77j2UUCo5Es=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2c9:b0:204:1675:843e with SMTP id o9-20020a05600002c900b002041675843emr32739803wry.699.1648581104028; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:43 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESszE6cxHAu7tNC5jbD8dJLn=0U4_v1-cjh3QTn=GpTXSbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf@ietf.org
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/2Rkf0XODwfp-d9S6KPY90s2hFQ0>
Subject: [lisp] AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:11:49 -0000

Dear authors:

I only have a couple of major comments (see below).  I am starting the
IETF LC and expect the comments to be addressed with any other
last-call comments before starting the IESG Evaluation in a couple of
weeks.

Luigi: One of the comments is related to the IANA assignment (mostly a
formality) -- the change will require a minor update to the Shepherd
writeup.


Just out of curiosity: how much deployment has rfc8060 seen?

Thanks!

Alvaro.


[Line numbers from idnits.]

...
84	3.  Vendor Specific LCAF
...
91	      0                   1                   2                   3
92	      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
93	     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
94	     |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
95	     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
96	     |   Type = 255  |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
97	     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
98	     |      Rsvd3    |    Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)   |
99	     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
100	     |                        Internal format...                     |
101	     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[major] s/255/TBD/g
See the comment in the IANA section below.


...
135	4.  Security Considerations

137	   This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
138	   internal use.  It is the responsibility of these organizations to
139	   properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.

[major] Please add text indicating that the security considerations in
rfc8060 apply


...
146	6.  IANA Considerations

148	   Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], this document requests IANA to
149	   update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry
150	   defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment:

[] The registry is called "LISP LCAF Type".  I'm not sure why IANA
chose to abbreviate the name (from "LISP Canonical Address Format
(LCAF) Types", which is what rfc8060 specified).  No change needed; I
will send them a note.


152	     +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
153	     | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name |           Reference           |
154	     +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
155	     |   255   |   Vendor Specific   |                 Section 3     |
156	     +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+

[major] The assignment is subject to the review of the Designated
Experts.  For now we need to go through the process:

NEW>
   IANA is asked to assign a value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor
   Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types"
   registry as follows:

     +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
     | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name |           Reference           |
     +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
     |   TBD   |   Vendor Specific   |  [This Document], Section 3   |
     +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+

[EoR -09]