[lisp] Shepherd Review Comments - draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-00.txt

Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <padma@huawei.com> Mon, 27 August 2018 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <padma@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07451294D0; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRo3vGkuFi0b; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2828124C04; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 41CCD77B72DD5; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:28:06 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:28:07 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:27:56 -0700
From: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <padma@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis@ietf.org>
CC: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd Review Comments - draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUPgnDhSVshIQbWEa+v1HVemfFXQ==
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:27:55 +0000
Message-ID: <FC113472-2AFB-4522-B0DE-7A7610514713@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FC1134722AFB4522B0DE7A7610514713huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/xJ6aBV-tAUmESr1qWpv8fFMbaKQ>
Subject: [lisp] Shepherd Review Comments - draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:28:15 -0000

Dear Authors

I am assigned to do the shepherd review of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-00.txt document as requested by LISP chairs.
First, I would like to thank all the authors on this well written document.
In order to complete the review, I have a few minor comments and questions on the document.
Would be great if the authors could respin the document to address them.


Comments on document
1. Idnits did not run clear.

idnits 2.15.01


- The rfc6833 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc6833 state file.
rm: cannot remove `/var/www//.idnits/rfc6833.state.date': No such file or directory

- The rfc6834 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc6834 state file.

- The rfc7835 state file is not from today.
   Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc7835 state file.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
     2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
     when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC6834]), which it
     shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
     documents in question.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (July 2, 2018) is 55 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of

     Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

2. Typos

Typos need to be fixed in abstract and Introduction sections:
This document obsoletes [RFC6834], which is the inital experimental
   specifications of the mechanims updated by this document.
initial -> initial
mechanims ->mechanisms

3. RFC references missing
In section 2, there is only reference to RFC 2119 and reference to RFC8174 should be added.

Shepherd Questionnaire
1. IPR Disclosures Confirmation
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Looked into mail archives and could not find evidence that authors confirmed IPR disclosures.
Can you please confirm or point to me where the disclosures were done?

2. Normative and Informative references
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

              Maino, F., Lemon, J., Agarwal, P., Lewis, D., and M.
              Smith, "LISP Generic Protocol Extension", draft-ietf-lisp-
              gpe-03 (work in progress), April 2018.

Shouldn’t this draft be in informative section instead to address this? See below discussions on alias
during the Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05.

3. RFC  status change
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to
the part of the document where the relationship of this document to
the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

It seems that the draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05.
If draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05 is published first, should a reference be made for this draft specifically?