[RTG-DIR]Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06
Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 01 June 2024 23:21 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4511AC14F609; Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171728408126.60779.4934672024063573487@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 16:21:21 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 2MYVBDLTQW5T2EWX5MCKOEZTNROWX2NA
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2MYVBDLTQW5T2EWX5MCKOEZTNROWX2NA
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-lisp-geo.all@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/L0WN4OVemHYFqkdYaaqnSMT2-Hk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Ines Robles Review result: Not Ready Reviewer: Ines Robles Date: 01-06-2024 Version reviewed:draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06 Summary: This draft describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the LISP Architecture and Protocols. The draft updates RFC 8060. The draft is well-constructed and comprehensive but can benefit from additional details and clarifications, as suggested below: Suggestions/Issues: It would be nice to add information about: 1- The document mentions compatibility with OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. It is suggested to provide examples of how LISP with geo-coordinates interoperates with these protocols. 2- The draft doesn't mention which LISP messages the geo-coordinates encoding should be used in. It is suggested to add explicitly in which LISP messages (such as Map-Register?) the geo-coordinates encoding should be used, to provide clearer guidance for implementers and newcomers. 3- How the geo-coordinates encoding will interoperate with existing LISP deployments, including any backward compatibility issues. 4- How to handle errors such as invalid geo-coordinate data or missing fields. 5- The performance impact of including geo-coordinates in LISP messages, such as increased message size and processing overhead. 6- Are the geo-coordinates incorporated in control plane operations? 7- Perhaps to include some Manageability Considerations? 8- How geo-coordinates can aid in selecting alternate paths and improving network resilience. how geo-coordinates could help manage dynamic and mobile topologies. 9- In the security considerations, what about add description on attacks related to geo-coordinates such as location spoofing? Nits: 10 - Abstract: "Geo-Coordinates can used in..." -> "Geo-Coordinates can be used in ..." 11 - Introduction: "...introduces two..." -> "...introduce two..." 12 - Section 4.2: "... in any on the inner ..." -> "... in any of the inner ..." 13 - Sometimes "Geo-Coordinates" is used and sometimes "geo-coordinates". Suggestion to use one format. 14 - Suggestion to expand on First use the acronyms: LISP, LCAF, ETR and RTR. 15 - Add a caption for the LCAF encoding figure and an introductory sentence to introduce the figure. 16- In the LCAF encoding figure, two AFI fields are depicted. Add a description for each one. For example, "The AFI field is set to 16387 to indicate that the address is using the LCAF format." And for the other AFI, "The AFI field indicates the Address Family Identifier for the following address...?" Also, add an explanation for the Address field. Thanks for this document, Ines.
- [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lisp-g… Ines Robles via Datatracker
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Dino Farinacci
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Dino Farinacci
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Luigi Iannone
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Ines Robles
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Dino Farinacci
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Ines Robles
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Luigi Iannone
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-li… Ines Robles