> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC

Thanks for your review Pete. Brian and I appreciate it.

> Though this is not an area of expertise for me, the document is clearly 
> written, I reviewed the data structures and they appear correct, and the 
> document seems ready to go forward. (I do find it dicey that this is an 
> Experimental document. I understand there is history here, but this is

The reason the document is Experimental is to be consistent with the rest of 
the LISP RFC set. We do have in the LISP WG charter to standards track the 
RFC-set and anticipate that this RFC will follow the same path. But of course, 
it is for the working group to decide.

> a full-fledged protocol document and the fact that it is only required to be 
> subjected to a cursory review for Experimental status and can pass IESG 
> review with one "YES" and everyone else "ABSTAIN"ing seems kinda ridiculous. 
> But that's not a reason to stop this document.)

I’ll yield to others to comment on this.

> Nits/editorial comments:
> Section 9, second to last paragraph: "Otherwise, the packet has been tampered 
> with and is discarded." The "tampered with" is probably overstating the case. 
> I would simply say "invalid”.


Thanks again,

Gen-art mailing list

Reply via email to