[lisp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: 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/ 
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-6834bis/



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

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, review of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Padma Pillay-Esnault for the shepherd's write-up including
the WG consensus and the intended status.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Section 2.2

## COMMENTS

### Section 6

Just wondering why having an algorithm defined for 'N' while the versions are
always on 12 bits.

### Section 8

```
Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD
   only be used in trusted and closed deployments.
```

An explanation of why and how would be welcome. Feel free to ignore this
comment though as this is the usual recommendation for any tunneling mechanism
w/o authentication/confidentiality.

## NITS

### Section 6

s/MUST consist in an increment by one the older/MUST consist in an increment by
one of the older/ ? Moreover, 'increment' is usually understood as 'add 1' so
no need to add 'by one' in the sentence

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments