[lisp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. This is really useful work and
the document is easy to read.

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would appreciate a
reply to each of my COMMENTs).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
As this document is in the same 'batch'/timing as the RFC 6830 bis, is there a
reason why this extension is not in the bis document itself?

-- Section 3 --
What is the reason why not reusing an existing 'next protocol' registry? Or
using a 16-bit Ethernet type like field (as in GRE) ?

As a side cosmetic note, I would have preferred to have 0x04 for IPv4 and 0x06
for IPv6.

"the shim header MUST come before the further protocol" but, if there are other
headers defined in LISP (I must confess my ignorance on this), should the shim
header be just after the LISP header ? I.e. the first one of a potential chain
(cfr IPv6 extension header chains) ?

It is unclear whether a shim header 'next protocol' field can also have a value
associated to yet another shim header.

== NITS ==
The document title "LISP Generic Protocol Extension" is generic while the
document is mainly about "multi-protocol encapsulation". Should the title be
changed? As a non-English speaker, I read the title as how to make any/generic
extension to the LISP protocol and not as a LISP extension to support the
transport of generic/any protocol.

-- Section 3 --
Strongly suggest to make it clear by adding a MUST in  "and ignored on
receipt", i.e., "and MUST be ignored on receipt"

"0x05 to 0x7D " the final ':' is missing.

Why not writing " 0x7E, 0x7F:" ?

"deploy new GPE features", GPE is not expanded before this first use (even if
quite obvious in this document).

s/octect/octet/