Re: [lisp] Review draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf

[Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

After a long delay we have finally pushed an updated version of the Vendor
Specific LCAF [1] addressing the editorial comments from Luigi. There was
rough consensus in London about moving this to last call.

Luigi/Joel, let me know if we can move forward with this one or if anything
else is needed on our end.

Thanks!
Alberto

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-02


On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:38 AM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for the review Luigi. All the proposed changes look good. We'll
> update the draft to reflect them.
>
> Thanks!
> Alberto
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > I did a quick review of the short vendor LCAF document.
> > My few comment are inline.
> >
> > Ciao
> >
> > L.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > LISP Working Group                                    A. Rodriguez-Natal
> > Internet-Draft                                                V. Ermagan
> > Intended status: Experimental                                 A. Smirnov
> > Expires: August 20, 2018                                   V. Ashtaputre
> >                                                            Cisco Systems
> >                                                             D. Farinacci
> >                                                              lispers.net
> >                                                               2 16, 2018
> >
> >
> >                           Vendor Specific LCAF
> >                      draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-01
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> >    This document describes a new LCAF for LISP, the Vendor Specific
> >
> > I would but in both the title and the first sentence of the abstract the
> > long version of the LCAF acronym:
> > “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)"
> >
> >
> >    LCAF.  This LCAF enables organizations to have internal encodings for
> >    LCAF addresses.
> >
> > Status of This Memo
> >
> >    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
> >    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> >
> >    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
> >    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
> >    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
> >    Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
> >
> >    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
> >    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
> >    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
> >    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> >
> >    This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2018.
> >
> > Copyright Notice
> >
> >    Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
> >    document authors.  All rights reserved.
> >
> >    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
> >    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
> >    (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
> >    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
> >    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
> >    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
> >    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
> >
> >
> >
> > Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 1]
> >
> > Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                      2 2018
> >
> >
> >    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
> >    described in the Simplified BSD License.
> >
> > Table of Contents
> >
> >    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
> >    2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
> >    3.  Vendor Specific LCAF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
> >    4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
> >    5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
> >    6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
> >    7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
> >    Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
> >
> > 1.  Introduction
> >
> >    The LISP Canonical Address Format
> >
> > add: “(LCAF)"
> >
> > [RFC8060] defines the format and
> >    encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
> >    [RFC6830]
> >
> > I would put 6830bis and 6833bis as reference since they are standard
> track.
> >
> > deployments.  However, certain deployments require specific
> >    format encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use-case
> >    for which they are defined.  The Vendor Specific LCAF allows
> >    organizations to create LCAF addresses to be used only internally on
> >    particular LISP deployments.
> >
> > 2.  Requirements Language
> >
> >    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
> >    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
> >    document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
> >
> > 3.  Vendor Specific LCAF
> >
> >    The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
> >    Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802_2001] to prevent collisions across
> >    vendors or organizations using the LCAF.  The format of the Vendor
> >    Specific LCAF is provided below.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 2]
> >
> > Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                      2 2018
> >
> >
> >      0                   1                   2                   3
> >      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      |   Type = 255  |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      |      Rsvd3    |    Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)   |
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      |                        Internal format...                     |
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >                            Vendor Specific LCAF
> >
> >    The Vendor Specific LCAF has the following fields.
> >
> >       Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be
> >       set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
> >
> >       Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field
> >       that carries the IEEE OUI [IEEE.802_2001] of the organization.
> >
> >       Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left
> >       undefined on purpose.  Each vendor or organization can define its
> >       own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF.
> >
> >    The definition for the rest of the fields can be found in [RFC8060].
> >
> >    The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD not be used in deployments where
> >    different organizations interoperate.  If a LISP device receives a
> >    LISP message containing a Vendor Specific LCAF with an OUI that it
> >    does not understand, it SHOULD drop the message and a log action MUST
> >    be taken.
> >
> > 4.  Security Considerations
> >
> >    This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
> >    internal use.  It is the responsibility of these organizations to
> >    properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.
> >
> > 5.  Acknowledgments
> >
> >    The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern for his suggestions and
> >    comments regarding this document.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 3]
> >
> > Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                      2 2018
> >
> >
> > 6.  IANA Considerations
> >
> >    Following the guidelines of [RFC5226],
> >
> > RFC5226 is obsoleted by RFC 8126, this should be updated
> >
> > that’s all :-)
> >
> > L.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lisp mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >
>