Re: [lisp] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction

[Albert Cabellos <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Thanks, please see inline my replies (removed text for which we all agree):


> [snip]
>


> >
> >>> * The discussion of SMR should contain a reference to 6830 or a
> >>> brief discussion of how the SMR is used.
> >>>
> >
> > Could you please elaborate further this comment?
> >
> > "Solicit-Map-Request (SMR):  SMR is an explicit mechanism to update
> > mapping information.  In particular a special type of Map-Request can
> > be sent on demand by ETRs to request refreshing a mapping. Upon
> > reception of a SMR message, the ITR must refresh the bindings by
> > sending a Map-Request to the Mapping System."
>
> There are more interesting conditions/rules for the use of SMR that are
> only found in RFC 6830.  I am suggesting adding a reference to 6830 at
> this point so readers know where to go to find more info on the SMR.
>
>
Agreed, I´ll add a sentence.

Further uses of SMRs are documented in [RFC6830].


> >
> >>> 8. Section 5
> >>>
> >>> * I would suggest having a reference to both the MIP and the NEMO
> >>> specs when discussing mobility.  LISP has the potential to
> >>> operate in a manner conducive with NEMO if the xTR acts as the
> >>> NEMO Mobile Router.
> >>
> >> Well if we do that then there are a ton of other cases where a xTR
> >> can be co-located with other functions (i.e. a simple reference is
> >> say a wifi AP). So singlingly out MIP/NEMO seems to be favoring
> >> these technologies versus others. Why would we want to do that?
> >>
> >> Plus, it raises questions more than simplifies the understanding of
> >> LISP. This is an intro document.
> >
> > What about adding the following sentence at the end of section 5?
> >
> > The decoupled identity and location provided by LISP allows it to
> > operate with other layer 2 and layer 3 mobility solutions.
>
> The text talks about both network (NEMO) and host (MIP) mobility.  I am
> not concerned with LISP interacting with those protocols, I am thinking
> of how LISP replaces those protocols.  The descriptions in Section 5
> align with very well (i.e., the first paragraph describes LISP replacing
> NEMO and the second paragraph describes LISP replacing MIP).  My
> proposal was to simply add references in those paragraphs to the
> mobility protocol that LISP is approximately.
>
> I do like your proposed addition in order to highlight that LISP will
> not interfere with other mobility solutions.
>
>
What about adding two sentences at the end of each paragraph:

This functionality is similar to [RFC NEMO].
This functionality is similar to [RFC MIP] [RFC MIPv6].

 [snip]

>>> 10. I am surprised that there are 2 Security Consideration
> >>> sections (7 & 9).  I am even more surprised that one says
> >>> "Nothing new here" and the other actually discusses potential
> >>> issues with the LISP approach.
> >>>
> >
> > My fault, Section 7 should be “LISP Security Considerations”
> >
> > Section 9 describes the security considerations for the document
> > itself.
>
> I think maintaining two security consideration sections will be
> confusing.  Either document that *this* document introduces no new
> security issues or have the security considerations section summarize
> the security impacts of LISP.
>
>
Agreed, will do the latter (so Section 9 is now Section 7).



> Regards,
> Brian
>
>
>
>