[lisp] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

#1  map-version rollover is defined (to skip the 0 version) but I also see:

The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number greater (i.e.,
       newer) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.  Since
       the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map-
       Version number of its mapping is the correct one

This would imply rollover to a smaller number is not expected to occur ?

#2 MUST NOT or SHOULD ?

Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be
used in trusted and closed deployments.

This sentence seems to contradict itself. I would turn the SHOULD into a MUST