Re: [lisp] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for reviewing the draft.
Please see inline.


> On 31 May 2022, at 22:03, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Paul Wouters 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> #1  map-version rollover is defined (to skip the 0 version) but I also see:
> 
> The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number greater (i.e.,
>       newer) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.  Since
>       the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map-
>       Version number of its mapping is the correct one
> 
> This would imply rollover to a smaller number is not expected to occur ?

It is expected to occur, actually. 
Text is a bit misleading. 
Will change it to: 

     The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number  newer than 
      the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.  Since
      the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map-
      Version number of its mapping is the correct one

Do you think it is better?


> 
> #2 MUST NOT or SHOULD ?
> 
> Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be
> used in trusted and closed deployments.
> 
> This sentence seems to contradict itself. I would turn the SHOULD into a MUST

I agree it make sense to put a MUST there.
Will change it.

Thanks

Ciao

L.



> 
> 
>