Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01

["Wiley, Glen" <[e-mail]>]

The draft looks acceptable to me.  I have a few high level comments and
I'll throw in a few more detailed ones for convenience:


There needs to be a discussion of resilience to DDOS, particularly because
LISP is based on UDP it may create opportunities for reflector and
amplification attacks similar to what we see on large scale DNS resolver
footprints.  Were you planning on including this in the "Robustness"
discussion?  I think it warrants a separate section if you are amenable to
that idea.  I'd be happy to contribute some narrative to that point as
well.


A few more detailed nits:

Section 2: Is DFZ size still a main design driver or is it really more of
a question of finer grained routing with a side benefit of DFZ size
reductions?

Section 3.2: "one at each end" isn't really the case for LISP, "one near
each end" I think is a little closer to what you mean, especially since
you mention LISP being invisible on both ends.

Section 5: Does list really have three key name spaces (thinking DDT
nodes) rather than two?

Section 11.2.1: Might want to revise language around the DNS registry
example.  TLDs have different registries (although root of course is
unique).  In DNS you can't take your domain name to a different registry,
you can however take it to a different registrar.

--
Glen Wiley
Systems Architect
Verisign Inc.




On 8/13/12 9:32 AM, "Noel Chiappa" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>    > From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
>
>    > I will send comments very soon.
>
>Comments will be most useful (and I look forward to them - assuming
>of course that that the WG decides to take these two up):.
>
>
>One minor thing to note; as I indicated when I first announced them:
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg03786.html
>
>These are rough drafts (and the second one is only partially complete),
>so as
>I indicated in that message:
>
>  we're not (yet) at the 'detailed editorial comments' stage - although if
>  anyone reads it, and has high-level comments (e.g. 'you ought to talk
>about
>  topic X', or 'it would be better if you talked about P before you get to
>  Q'), I would be most grateful for, and interested in, hearing things
>like
>  that.
>
>I tend to fiddle with text details extensively, so at the detail level
>there
>will have been lots of changes before the next draft version. After that,
>then we'll be ready for the detailed editorial comments! :-)
>
>	Noel
>_______________________________________________
>lisp mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp