Re: [lisp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04: (with COMMENT)

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Thu, 22 October 2015 14:08 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <20151022124652.30711.11416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:08:48 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C01EC346-B1DC-4618-960E-630669D68763@gigix.net>
References: <20151022124652.30711.11416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/UH7p3z31oFLi2oKfkaFeY5nmgdY>
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-impact.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-impact@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Stephen,

> On 22 Oct 2015, at 14:46, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 

[snip]
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> - section 3: "proven by several studies" without references is
> bad - we don't want blatent assertion in RFCs so please add
> some references. That could be done via forward pointers to
> later in the document or just by adding the refs here as well
> and explaining them more later. Or else delete the sentence as
> being redundant.
> 

You are right. References are already in the document but in the sentence you are citing we need to either cite them again of put a forward reference.

I am more prone to the second solution, a forward reference. Should be simpler.

> - section 3, para starting "Results indicate...": Which
> results? I can't tell from how it's written.

There is missing reference there. [CDLC] is the one that needs to be added. Thanks.

> 

> - section 4: ConteXtream needs a reference as does the tier-1
> operator (even if that has to be "private communication"at
> least I'd know to go ask the authors if I care.
> 

I will check with ConteXtream about adding the references you are asking.

> - I think you could note that as a map-and-encap scheme LISP
> also offers the potential for encryption of traffic between
> xTRs and reference the relevant lisp-crypto draft. That could
> go where you add a mention of rfc 7258 if you do add that.
> (In response to I think Spencer's comment.)
> 

Excellent idea.

I will added a reference to that document and adjust the text accordingly.

> - As with Kathleen, I think the secdir review deserves a
> substantive response. Please give it one.
> 

I really confused here! We did provide substantial answer. 
More specifically for the secdir… all my emails are awaiting moderator decision because I am not a member.

>

[lisp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ie… Stephen Farrell
Re: [lisp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Luigi Iannone