Re: [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with COMMENT)
Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Thu, 18 February 2016 00:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5101B1A88ED for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:31:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 26tFpQ9EEUxS for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 003A81A21BC for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id c200so2895846wme.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:31:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wLHspJPp9ncIDmjD2bF9MjnLhcYQdg78nMSjRGzcB/A=; b=F2T9d19v/jYVC3ZWgRoDRNI2q6cgDnHzLa7XmzGLX2lJ1AlUO5dXoHhdcd/zgAjAj6 ihiMWMkTZbfyE2zyT2gso67Rxw6DD5n4efJpUrr8jSZ+QchxlPz+7DkSYh8rz1xEPqWD +xufmlrr5HV/9awUdK3Rnp53tih7L8HD0Q2d3aaovM8bFExHaR8kcTtTOP8aj9/vTDj1 pzyb05xZaT0zbFYZj1Tc7JZ09XVAytKaJrofsFM23m3jrHcXsgHSHi9LvGKnNM8PEjMd 1qGh7zkUJcGtU3W6ASWyi8/tZ2oXAer0B3rfw8Z2/WYVKPF9rdOgLRfUuYDEwVKzfhs+ JUmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=wLHspJPp9ncIDmjD2bF9MjnLhcYQdg78nMSjRGzcB/A=; b=cYhoCwA7CwqySJ7VRF4LUmIdbiE1ETZCVAv+2cBf/0/3majHaAnfYThHF62ceZzHGO CkGsc1bHQdtAbWXciSfG3CNUV15j9ckTamJOyBRsaZKERPGzyZ/SN7+aOFwzwLiMUI8W tbxidsmMFgTZ1xIwwRLL8TYgYMUkmcmvng+7AQN2N7UncEpkhZnEZFsIZ6z94bVINqvj UXo90OD4rtuYEx5x4MAuwnRmnG1LhCldmXhhLTfEguuE5iUJvuJKCPVEnMEWWfIJHLYX nFPDKbuXCR7BenKoGhCR9ASddcvoXuYkTqg48ZEXaSO0Y/y2oA8GR8KZ0HoqR3z2/PYj VWzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSaUymEkRX8lMEZOCNdtWZCP1IKircX1d3GGxhr6D0MxP+sF1vUW0+O9eb2SNyWpQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.189.143 with SMTP id gi15mr4534076wjc.54.1455755481602; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fatboy.intern (i577B59F2.versanet.de. [87.123.89.242]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 79sm343604wmo.7.2016.02.17.16.31.14 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160217210147.23818.32277.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 01:31:06 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E240CD1C-3F60-4EDA-9704-9F9BA0E7B5C3@gigix.net>
References: <20160217210147.23818.32277.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/FXk1qRHhgT2mMblFtBQ8nnLOtGg>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:31:35 -0000
HI Ben, thanks for reading the document. > On 17 Feb 2016, at 22:01, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: 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-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. > That is what the whole document aim. The 3+3 plan is: let’s experiment for 3 year and finish _unless_ the IETF thinks otherwise. Certainly we can improve the wording in making that _unless_ more clear. > 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" > > Thanks. Will fix all fo this. ciao Luigi
- Re: [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Luigi Iannone
- [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell