[lisp] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 24 November 2020 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14AF23A02DC; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:24:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, ggx@gigix.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <160626028906.8306.8187959718485116428@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:24:49 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/nOf_Qry0-IgkZcLjkURzXQIEcjA>
Subject: [lisp] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 23:24:49 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/



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

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.

I would suggest the following rewordings:
OLD
Map-Notify messages are only transmitted upon the reception of a Map-
   Register with the M-bit set, Map-Notify messages are not
   retransmitted.  The only exeption to this is for unsolicited Map-
   Notify messages, see below.

NEW
When transmitted in response to a Map-Register with the M-bit set, Map-Notify messages are not
   retransmitted.

OLD
A Map-Notify is retransmitted until a Map-
   Notify-Ack is received by the Map-Server with the same nonce used in
   the Map-Notify message.

NEW
An unsolicited Map-Notify is retransmitted until a Map-
   Notify-Ack is received by the Map-Server with the same nonce used in
   the Map-Notify message.

s/Notifiy/Notify