Re: [lisp] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

I fixed all the comments you had in the COMMENT section.

Dino

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 6:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16: Discuss
> 
> 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-rfc6833bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have a list of smaller points that should be relatively easy to address. The
> two main ones:
> 
> I believe [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] needs to be a Normative Reference for this
> document. This will address some of the issues raised by Benjamin, but will
> also make description of various security bits meaningful.
> 
> Similarly, in Section 5.6:
> 
>   I: This is the xTR-ID bit.  When this bit is set, what is appended to
>      the Map-Register is a 128-bit xTR router-ID and then a 64-bit
>      site-ID.  See LISP NAT-Traversal procedures in
>      [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] for details.
> 
> This description makes [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] a normative reference.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Abstract
> 
>   By using this Control-Plane service interface and communicating with
>   Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and
>   Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of
>   mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different
>   database designs.  Since these devices implement the "edge" of the
>   LISP Control-Plane infrastructure, connect directly to LISP-capable
>   Internet end sites, and comprising the bulk of LISP-speaking devices,
>   reducing their implementation and operational complexity should also
>   reduce the overall cost and effort of deploying LISP.
> 
> The last sentence: I've reread it several times and still not sure what it says.
> I suggest rewording, possibly breaking up into shorter sentences.
> 
> In Section 5.1 the acronym SMR is used before it is defined (It is defined on
> the next page).
> 
> In 5.2:
> 
>   A: This is an authoritative bit, which is set to 0 for UDP-based Map-
>      Requests sent by an ITR.  It is set to 1 when an ITR wants the
>      destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping
>      database system.
> 
> This sentence seems to be missing a word at the end, because you don't return
> "the mapping database system".
> 
> In Section 5.6:
> 
>   T: This is the use-TTL for timeout bit.  When set to 1, the xTR wants
>      the Map-Server to time out registrations based on the value in the
>      "Record TTL" field of this message.
> 
> And what happens when it is 0?
> 
> 11.4.  LISP Address Type Codes
> 
>   Therefore, there is no longer a need for the "LISP Address Type
>   Codes" registry requested by [RFC6830].  This document requests to
>   remove it.
> 
> IANA registries are not supposed to be removed, they typically declared closed
> when not needed. Can you elaborate of whether this registry was ever used?
> 
>