Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dino,

In some protocols that I am aware of, it is usual to state that the
variable-length portion in the TLVs/objects is 4-byte aligned. But looking
at RFC 8060, I see that LISP does not follow this approach for any of the
LCAF and it works just fine without it. I agree with you that no change is
required then. Thanks for taking my comment into consideration.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:19 AM Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dhruv, can you explain more specifically what you mean by padding? Since
> any LCAF encoding (even a vendor LCAF) has a length field, the encoding can
> be the exact number of bytes described by the length. So no padding is
> required.
>
> Or did you mean something else?
>
> Dino
>
> > On Apr 26, 2022, at 7:49 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dhruv,
> >
> > Thanks for your review! You’re bringing good points.
> >
> > As per your comment on padding, it’s a good question but I cannot recall
> right now any padding requirement in other LISP docs. A a quick search for
> ‘padding' in rfc6833bis and RFC8060 shows not results. Maybe someone else
> on the list can comment on padding requirements in LISP (if any)?
> >
> > Also, good point on expanding LISP on first use, we’ll make sure to do
> so in the revised draft.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Alberto
> >
> > From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:03 PM
> > To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10
> >
> > Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> > Review result: Has Issues
> >
> > I was assigned the reviewer today. I noticed that the IESG ballot is
> done and
> > the document is approved, I am not sure how valuable this review would
> be but
> > anyways...
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The
> > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as
> > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on
> special
> > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the
> Routing ADs.
> > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> > ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> >
> > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would
> > be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> > comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion
> or by
> > updating the draft.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf
> > Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> > Review Date: 2022-04-26
> > IETF LC End Date: Over
> > Intended Status: Experimental
> >
> > Summary:
> > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved
> > before publication.
> >
> > Comments:
> > - The document is simple, clear and straightforward.
> >
> > Major Issues:
> > - No major issues found.
> >
> > Minor Issues:
> > - Is there any padding requirement that should be mentioned for the
> Internal
> > format in alignment with the rest of LISP? - Consider if adding an
> example in
> > the appendix would be useful for a casual reader.
> >
> > Nits:
> > - LISP does not have a * next to it at
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and thus
> should be
> > expanded on first use!
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dhruv
> >
>
>