Hi all, I like the document, I think it is a solid work. Just a few comments, mostly regarding format and typos.
Content comments - About the future uses of LISP, I think that besides referring to the [Future] document, maybe it is worth to point out a few possible examples of these future uses. Just to illustrate the reader and to allow him/her to see the possibilities of LISP. - In section 11.3, I do agree that some brief comments about SMR and Proxy-Map-Reply should be included. Format/style comments - I agree with the idea, mentioned in previous reviews, that acronyms (specially LISP-related ones) should be followed by what they stand for the first time they appear. Slightly related to this, TTL acronym is used in 8 but defined in 9.2.3. - I think that sections at the beginning of the document, that introduce topics that will be discussed in detail later, should point to the sections where these topics are discussed. This is already done in some sections (section 3.3 points to section 9.5 and section 4.3 links to 5.2), but not in all. Some examples where this can be done: section 3.4 can point to 10.1, section 4.4 to 11.3 and 5.2.3 to 9.1 - I believe that LISP-related terms shouldn't be used prior to introduce them. As an example, Map-Request and Map-Reply concepts are used in 5.1, but they are not introduced until 5.2.2 Typos (I will try to omit those that have already appeared in other reviews in the mailing list) - Sec. 2.2: "whereever" possible - Sec. 4: It is very "imporant" to note - Sec. 4.2: and the "existince" of a binding layer - Sec. 4.3: distributed "computationa" - Sec 8.2: In most "exising" hardware - Sec. 10.2.1: precisely "to" to minimize the number - Sec. 11.4: LISP's mapping capability "isa" used - Sec 12.4: are _not_ "synonmous" Regards, Alberto
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
