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

Hello Noel and others

These drafts were very interesting readings.  

I have some comments that you may consider:

draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01

Section economics

you mention here "maximizing" the cost-benefit ratio. I believe we
should minimize or optimize it.

Section 4. Initial applications

These may go a bit too far and some of the text maybe better positioned
in the architecture draft rather than in the intro document. This is
because that the base documents as such do not suffice for some of the
applications you describe here: Traffic engineering and mobility and
maybe IP version reciprocal traversal but needs extension on top of the
base documents. And these extensions are not yet WG draft even. 

Should we say something where in the network the LISP  nodes/ devices
are located (e.g. CPE, CE/PE etc)?

Maybe whole section 7 Design approach is better at home in the
architecture document.

Note that you use terms node and device interchangeable (editorial).

draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01

I was wondering if draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt is worth mentioning
in the relationship of sections 5.2 and 5.3?

One editorial wording nit: "base station" is not a mobile ip term, and
in cellular networks it has a certain meaning  (@ radio level) that
doesn't match what is meant here either. Instead mobile IP talks about
"home agents" that know the original location.  

Thank you for the documents.

best regards
Hannu

-----Original Message-----
From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 4:33 PM
To: lisp@ietf.org
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01
anddraft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01

    > From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>

    > 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
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp