[lisp] Ben Campbell's No Record on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 17 February 2016 20:34 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160217203401.9664.89843.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:34:01 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/CA8_qg26_14_ApPdzRaJ693uow4>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Record on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: No Record

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-eid-block/



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

Substantive:

- section 6:
Predictions that the IETF will or will not do something  are risky
propositions at best. I suggest stating a default result that will occur
_unless_ the IETF chooses to take action.

Editorial:
There's quite a number of grammar and word choice errors. I list some
below, but I am sure I did not catch everything. I suggest another pass
at proofreading before publication.

-3:
s/"avoid penalize"/"avoid penalizing"
s/"ask an allocation"/"ask for an allocation"  ; or "request an
allocation"
s/"avoid non-LISP domains to fragment " / "allow non-LISP domains to
avoid fragmenting"
"... which would negatively impact the BGP routing infrastructure"
Which would cause negative impact, the fragmentation, or the avoidance of
the fragmentation?
s/"worth to mention"/"worth mentioning"

-4
s/"Such prefix"/"Such prefixes"  ; or "This prefix"
/"As the LISP adoption progress"/"As the LISP adoption progresses"

"... the EID block will potentially help in reducing the impact on the
BGP routing infrastructure with respect to the case of the same number of
adopters using global unicast space allocated by RIRs "
Convoluted sentence. Can it be simplified?
s/"Such trend"/"Such trends" ; or "This trend"

"With the exception of PITR case (described above)"
Which case is the PITR case? This is the first use of PITR.

-5:
s/"looks as sufficiently large"/"appears sufficiently large"

-9:
s/"provided by IANA before published"/"provided by IANA before
publication"

[lisp] Ben Campbell's No Record on draft-ietf-lis… Ben Campbell