[lisp] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-sec-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-27: Discuss

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-sec/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sections 8.1 through 8.5 all create registries with "Specification Required"
rules.  RFC 8126 says this about "Specification Required":

   As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated
   expert should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough
   understanding of Section 5 is important.

Only Section 8.5 includes any such guidance.  Is none needed for the other
four?  Also, I'm having trouble understanding the advice that Section 8.5 does
give.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with John; this was generally well-done and easy to understand.  Nice
work.  A couple of suggestions:

In Section 6.1 has:

   E: ETR-Cant-Sign bit.  This bit is set to 1 to signal ...

I think you mean "If this bit is set to 1, it signals ..." or something
similar.  Taken literally, the current text means you always set it to 1, but I
don't think that's what you meant to say.

I think the fifth paragraph of Section 6.4 is missing a period or something.  I
found it hard to parse toward the end.