Re: [lisp] [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT)

[Amanda Baber <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The registry was created for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22, at which point the registry was called “LISP LCAF Type.” It looks like we need to update the name of the registry to match the published RFC.

Thanks,
Amanda

From: iesg <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal)" <natal=[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:21 PM
To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Roman,

Thanks for your review! Regarding the registry name, we took it from the IANA section of RFC 8060 [1] that lists it as "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types". You’re indeed right that the IANA website shows it as “LISP LCAF Type.” I guess here we should follow the IANA website name, right?

Thanks!
Alberto

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.html#section-7 [rfc-editor.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.html*section-7__;Iw!!PtGJab4!pDhG1N7GEuz8bdOfuO67s2THV5CebLG5ofajnaeeevERS5Kq2CXbfY8Kd5EKpwb8EDmNAAYf$>


From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 5:41 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10: 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/ [ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!PtGJab4!pDhG1N7GEuz8bdOfuO67s2THV5CebLG5ofajnaeeevERS5Kq2CXbfY8Kd5EKpwb8EILorgK8$>
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-vendor-lcaf/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf/__;!!PtGJab4!pDhG1N7GEuz8bdOfuO67s2THV5CebLG5ofajnaeeevERS5Kq2CXbfY8Kd5EKpwb8EA0g4MKx$>



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

** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in
Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type =
255”).  It should read TBD in both places.  Suggesting 255, if that is the
desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads).

** Section 6.

Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
   value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP
   Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
   [RFC8060]) as follows:

The text here calls the registry the “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
Types”.  That doesn’t appear to be the official name. Examining
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type
it appears to be “LISP LCAF Type.”