Re: [lisp] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-04-06: (with COMMENT)

[Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>]

Hi John

Please see  PPE for my comments inline.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 4:47 PM John Scudder via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-lisp-04-06: 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.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> “LISP deployments could benefit from more advanced internet-working”
>
> Should this be “interworking”? If not, why not?
>
> PPE - Thanks for catching this.

Original:
“LISP deployments could benefit from more advanced internet-working”

Proposed:
“LISP deployments could benefit from more advanced interworking”


Editorial:
>
> s/identified by the working as main LISP applications/identified by the
> working
> group as main LISP applications/ (add “group”)


> s/The management of LISP protocol and deployments include data models,
> OAM/The
> management of LISP protocol and deployments including data models, OAM/
> (“include” should be “including”)



> s/leveraging on/leveraging/ (remove “on”)
>


PPE - Agree with all changes proposed above


s/LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT/LISP tunnel endpoints
> are
> separated from one another by a NAT/ (add “one another”)
>
> PPE -
The original was modified into Proposed. The New Proposed includes your
editorial comment and Martin's comments

Original:
NAT-Traversal: Support for a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where
LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node).

Proposed:
NAT-Traversal: *LISP protocol extensions to* support a NAT-traversal
solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a
NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). The LISP WG will collaborate with the TSVWG
working on NAT-Transversal.

New Proposed:
NAT-Traversal: *LISP protocol extensions to* support a NAT-traversal
solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from one
another by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). The LISP WG will collaborate
with the TSVWG working on NAT-Transversal.

Thanks
Padma