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

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:11:43 -0700

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]