Hi Noel,
overall, I believe there have been significant improvements in this version.
Below please find a few comments of mine.
General
[whole document]
- You tend to use the verb "switch" for xTRs. Is that correct/intended sensu
stricto? Lato sensu I can understand…
- (you already have a question about this in the doc) You tend to use "binding"
and "mapping" interchangeably. Do you see any benefit in sticking with just the
second term perhaps?
- please choose between "user interface" or "client interface". I would go with
the second one, as the first one can bring wrong associations to a totally
new-comer.
[4.5] and [12.4]
You do include solutions/contributions offered when describing a LISP feature
and it's real nice (given you are skipping technical details because of brevity
of doc). This is _not_ the case, though, for sections:
- [4.5] Security
- [12.4] Liveness
Here you only discuss the necessity, rather than what they at least offer or
intend to offer.
[5.7]
What do you mean by "application-specific data"?
[6.1] "now-normal"
I would put this in double quotes.
[6.2.3]
This section should not be so much tied to DDT. It should be highlighted that
_any_ database that meets the requirements could be used. And there are plenty
of examples. And this gives versatility to LISP.
[6.2.3.1] 5th paragraph
This seems wrong. The DDT leaf nodes _are_ MSs and, thus, do not "assign EID
namespace blocks to MS's".
[6.2.3.1] 2nd paragraph "necessarily smaller"
Redundant as it cannot be larger anyways as only parts can be delegated to
children.
[7.1]
It would be helpful to add a paragraph about the reason of/benefits from the
existence of the LISP header.
[7.2]
You could add "as previously explained in Section XX"
[9.1]
- 2nd paragraph: "normally" -> "natively" better?
- 3rd paragraph: did you intend to say "despite the fact" or "although" instead
of "because"?
[10.1.2]
What about negative ones?
[10.1.3] and elsewhere "and its AFI"
Why keep mentioning AFIs? Doesn't it go without saying?
[10.2]
- 3rd paragraph: You may want to use "DDT nodes" everywhere (as in the draft)
instead of the term "servers". Just a suggestion.
- 6th paragraph: "{{I think this case has been mentioned already; check.}}"
yes, it has been. So, I would remove the next paragraph "Delegations are…"
[13.2]
The way 13.2 is written (with all these problems outlined and no solutions
provided) gives the impression to the new-comer that mobility does not work in
LISP today, which is absolutely wrong (either physically "LISP-MN" or in a DC
environment). At least, this is how I felt when I read it.
[13.4] " {{Any others?}}"
Since these "improvements" sections are so short anyways, what about adding a
few words about LISP+SDN (LISP-enabled Openflow, opportunities in Openstack,
[whole document]
No need to introduce new paragraphs at:
- [6.2.2] between second and third paragraph
- [12.4] between 3rd and 4th paragraph
[4.2] 1st paragraph
no verb in the secondary "that" clause or confusing subject ("packets") if
"switches" is the verb
[3.2] 3rd paragraph
Discussed this with you in my previous email (related to version "00").
For brevity reasons, I would still remove:
[3.1] " One might have the world’s best ’clean-slate’ design, but if it does
not have a deployment plan which is economically feasible, it’s not good for
much."
Structure-related comments
[5.5] and [13.2] Mobility
- Mobility (although indeed in different enough degree of instantiations) has
been around since almost the early days of LISP itself. As such I wold remove
it from improvements and move the [13.2] text into [5.5].
- No reference(s) provided in current [5.5]
[6.1.1]
- Shouldn't this section follow mapping [6.2]? And be a subsection of that one?
- 3rd paragraph -- Description of first effort seems too long (also compared to
the rest ones). Feel free to drop out some details if possible.
[9] first paragraph
if [9.x] are "advanced topics" then it "automatically" makes them candidates
for removal given the prior email discussion about keeping the _Intro_ document
short. But I believe [9.1], [9.8], a few details in [9.2] are indeed
(fundamental) helpful to be included in this document. Just pointing out in
case you were looking to somehow cut down the size of the document.
[10] 1st paragraph
Here you refer to only "indexing subsystem" and the "mappings" although you
mentioned _3_ subsections above [in 6.2.1].
[11.2]
Shouldn't [11.3], [11.4], [11.5] and [11.6] be subsections of [11.2]?
Thanks,
Vasileios
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
