[lisp] Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Not Ready
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Date: 01-06-2024
> Version reviewed:draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06

Thanks for your comments. I have posted -07. See my responses to your comments below.

> Suggestions/Issues:
> 
> It would be nice to add information about:
> 
> 1- The document mentions compatibility with OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. It is
> suggested to provide examples of how LISP with geo-coordinates interoperates
> with these protocols.

LISP does not interoperate directly with these protocols. The text indicates the geo-coordinate packet format is the same to adhere to a more holistic consistency.

> 2- The draft doesn't mention which LISP messages the geo-coordinates encoding
> should be used in. It is suggested to add explicitly in which LISP messages
> (such as Map-Register?) the geo-coordinates encoding should be used, to provide
> clearer guidance for implementers and newcomers.

They are the messages that contain EID-records and RLOC-records. I put in a reference to rfc9301.

> 3- How the geo-coordinates encoding will interoperate with existing LISP
> deployments, including any backward compatibility issues.

Added a new section.

> 4- How to handle errors such as invalid geo-coordinate data or missing fields.

Fixed in the section 5.

> 5- The performance impact of including geo-coordinates in LISP messages, such
> as increased message size and processing overhead.

Did not add this. There is no impact.

> 6-  Are the geo-coordinates incorporated in control plane operations?

Yes. RFC9301 and RFC8060 references make this clear.

> 7- Perhaps to include some Manageability Considerations?

For what? All the management of this new type or any type is in RFC9301.

> 8- How geo-coordinates can aid in selecting alternate paths and improving
> network resilience. how geo-coordinates could help manage dynamic and mobile
> topologies.

We have already provided the use-cases we intend to support. There is no plans to add new features.

> 9- In the security considerations, what about add description on attacks
> related to geo-coordinates such as location spoofing?

We had added that from previous reviews. Tell us exactly what you are looking for.

> Nits:
> 
> 10 - Abstract: "Geo-Coordinates can used in..." -> "Geo-Coordinates can be used
> in ..." 11 - Introduction: "...introduces two..." -> "...introduce two..." 12 -
> Section 4.2: "... in any on the inner ..." -> "... in any of the inner ..." 13
> - Sometimes "Geo-Coordinates" is used and sometimes "geo-coordinates".
> Suggestion to use one format. 14 - Suggestion to expand on First use the
> acronyms: LISP, LCAF, ETR and RTR. 15 - Add a caption for the LCAF encoding
> figure and an introductory sentence to introduce the figure. 16- In the LCAF
> encoding figure, two AFI fields are depicted. Add a description for each one.
> For example, "The AFI field is set to 16387 to indicate that the address is
> using the LCAF format." And for the other AFI, "The AFI field indicates the
> Address Family Identifier for the following address...?" Also, add an
> explanation for the Address field.

Made all these changes. It was alraedy commented to not redefine the terms so hence not expanded.

> Thanks for this document,

Thanks again for the review,
Dino