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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Luigi, for the fast reply !

Indeed, as you guessed, I made a mistake when copying & pasting from my ‘ballot template’ into your I-D... I really want to apologize [*]

Understood for the ‘N’ discussion, still suggest to only use it for 12 bits but this is cosmetic. Up to the authors.

The proposed text for the security consideration is an improvement to my eyes. Again up to the authors.

Hope this will help the document,

Regards,

-éric

[*] as a lame excuse, have a look on my ‘to review’ list https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/ (knowing that last week was partly ‘off’ in most of Europe as you know).

From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 13:11
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi Éric,

Thank you very much for your review.
Please find my comments inline.


On 31 May 2022, at 09:54, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

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

I miss the DISCUSS point here, and there is not section 2.2 (may be a cut and paste error?)



## COMMENTS

### Section 6

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

At the very very beginning there were a couple of options on where to place the version number in the header (original suggestion was in replacement of the Loc-Status-Bits). So, we described the general algorithm without specifying the real size of the field.




### 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.

The MUST NOT is actually part of the overall review and discussion that has been held about 6830bis and 6833bis (and 6834bis).
Consensus was on the MUST NOT be used. We can actually merge the sentence with the previous paragraph to highlight the link with those documents:


   This document builds on the specification and operation of the LISP

   control and data planes.  The Security Considerations of

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis#ref-I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis>] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis#ref-I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis>] apply, as such

   Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD

   only be used in trusted and closed deployments.  A

   thorough security analysis of LISP is documented in [RFC7835<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7835>].





Would this work better?

## 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

Thanks. Will fix as suggested.

Thank you again for the review.

Ciao

L.




## 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