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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alberto,

Just a few nits
- replace [RFC8060] with RFC 8060 in the abstract. As per the style guide [
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7322#section-4.3] - the Abstract
must not contain citations!
- Expand CID

And a suggestion - perhaps add text in section 3 to explicitly state
that "[RFC8060]
does not explain how an implementation should handle unrecognized LCAF
Type."

Thanks!
Dhruv


On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 4:58 PM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <natal=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
>
> Thanks again for your review! In the -11 version of the draft [1] we have
> expanded the LISP acronym on first use, according to your good suggestion.
>
>
>
> Please kindly let us know any comment you might have in the new version.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alberto
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-11
>
>
>
> *From: *Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:49 PM
> *To: *Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10
>
> 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
>
>
>