Re: [lisp] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT)

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks Roman for reviewing the draft. 

Alvaro already spotted this name issue in his AD review and proposed to send an email to IANA.
I do not think there is a need to change anything in the document.

Ciao

L.



> On 23 Apr 2022, at 00:20, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Roman,
>  
> Thanks for your review! Regarding the registry name, we took it from the IANA section of RFC 8060 [1] that lists it as "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types". You’re indeed right that the IANA website shows it as “LISP LCAF Type.” I guess here we should follow the IANA website name, right?
>  
> Thanks!
> Alberto
>  
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.html#section-7 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.html#section-7>
>  
>  
> From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 5:41 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/> 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in
> Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type =
> 255”).  It should read TBD in both places.  Suggesting 255, if that is the
> desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads).
> 
> ** Section 6.
> 
> Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
>    value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP
>    Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
>    [RFC8060]) as follows:
> 
> The text here calls the registry the “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
> Types”.  That doesn’t appear to be the official name. Examining
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type>
> it appears to be “LISP LCAF Type.”
>