Hello Noel and others These drafts were very interesting readings.
I have some comments that you may consider: draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 Section economics you mention here "maximizing" the cost-benefit ratio. I believe we should minimize or optimize it. Section 4. Initial applications These may go a bit too far and some of the text maybe better positioned in the architecture draft rather than in the intro document. This is because that the base documents as such do not suffice for some of the applications you describe here: Traffic engineering and mobility and maybe IP version reciprocal traversal but needs extension on top of the base documents. And these extensions are not yet WG draft even. Should we say something where in the network the LISP nodes/ devices are located (e.g. CPE, CE/PE etc)? Maybe whole section 7 Design approach is better at home in the architecture document. Note that you use terms node and device interchangeable (editorial). draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 I was wondering if draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt is worth mentioning in the relationship of sections 5.2 and 5.3? One editorial wording nit: "base station" is not a mobile ip term, and in cellular networks it has a certain meaning (@ radio level) that doesn't match what is meant here either. Instead mobile IP talks about "home agents" that know the original location. Thank you for the documents. best regards Hannu -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 4:33 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 anddraft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 > From: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> > I will send comments very soon. Comments will be most useful (and I look forward to them - assuming of course that that the WG decides to take these two up):. One minor thing to note; as I indicated when I first announced them: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg03786.html These are rough drafts (and the second one is only partially complete), so as I indicated in that message: we're not (yet) at the 'detailed editorial comments' stage - although if anyone reads it, and has high-level comments (e.g. 'you ought to talk about topic X', or 'it would be better if you talked about P before you get to Q'), I would be most grateful for, and interested in, hearing things like that. I tend to fiddle with text details extensively, so at the detail level there will have been lots of changes before the next draft version. After that, then we'll be ready for the detailed editorial comments! :-) Noel _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
