> On 06 Mar 2015, at 15:25, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Alia, > >> On 05 Mar 2015, at 23:13, Alia Atlas <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Luigi, >> >> Yes, Adrian also picked up on the "typically" for EID and RLOC and the >> proposed response fixes that as well as the BGP issues. >> >> I don't recall seeing the "oh, routers can just do with with a software >> upgrade" claim fixed. > > because it is lost in a lot of other fixes ;-) > > The authors propose to change the wording in the following way: > > "Adding LISP capabilities to routers does not mandate hardware changes and > can be done via a software upgrade." > > The point authors are trying to make is not about how to install LISP in your > boxes, is more about the fact that the protocol > does not need new hardware. Obviously you there can be hardware > implementations, but as you rightfully point out, this is > not the place to mention them. So, the above sentence looks appropriate, > unless we want to simplify even more and just state: > > "Adding LISP capabilities to routers does not mandate hardware changes." > > What do you think? > > Just take out the whole sentence. It adds nothing except inaccuracy and > marketing.
I can live with that. If the authors agree, than let’s delete the sentence. ciao Luigi > > Alia > > > ciao > > Luigi > >> >> Regards, >> Alia >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi Alia >> >> thanks for the review. >> >> I have just one comment right in the middle of your review. >> >> > On 05 Mar 2015, at 16:14, Alia Atlas <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for >> > draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-12: Discuss >> > >> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> > introductory paragraph, however.) >> > >> > >> > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> > <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html> >> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> > >> > >> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/ >> > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/> >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > DISCUSS: >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > I support Adrian's discuss. In a similar vein: >> > >> > In Sec 3.2: Please either remove the claim of "Such LISP capable >> > routers, in most cases, only require a software upgrade." or explain >> > how you can justify the need to add and remove new encapsulations and >> > handle the various flag triggers and caching at line rate. There is >> > no need for such marketing in this document. >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > COMMENT: >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > 1) Sec 1, second paragraph: >> > "LISP creates two separate namespaces, EIDs (End-host IDentifiers) >> > and >> > RLOCs (Routing LOCators), both are typically syntactically identical >> > to the current IPv4 and IPv6 addresses." >> > >> > What does "typically" mean? As far as I'm aware, they are >> > syntactically identical. This is reiterated in Sec 3.2; are you just >> > trying to preserve the point of architectural freedom? I've found >> > the >> > third instance of insisting that the EID or RLOC now is only >> > "typically" >> > an IPv4 or IPv6 address. Please lose "typically". Minorly, the , >> > before both should be a ;. >> > >> >> I think that the changes the authors already proposed to Adrian fix the >> above Discuss and comments. >> Can you check if I am correct? >> >> From this point down is just typos/grammar, so authors will easily fix your >> helpful comments >> >> thanks again >> >> ciao >> >> L. >> >> >> >> >> >> > 2) top paragraph of p.4: >> > "The initial motivation in the LISP effort is to be found in the >> > routing scalability problem [RFC4984], where, if LISP is completely >> > deployed, the Internet core is populated with RLOCs while Traffic >> > Engineering mechanisms are pushed to the Mapping System." >> > >> > Instead of "LISP is completely deployed" to "LISP were to be >> > completely deployed" - making it subjunctive. >> > >> > 3) Last paragraph in Sec 1: >> > "This document describes the LISP architecture, its main >> > operational mechanisms as its design rationale." >> > >> > I think you mean >> > >> > "This document describes the LISP architecture and its main >> > operational mechanisms as well as its design rationale." >> > >> > 4) In Sec 3.1, second paragraph: >> > "Locator/Identifier split: By decoupling the overloaded semantics >> > of the current IP addresses the Internet core can be assigned >> > identity meaningful addresses and hence, can use aggregation to >> > scale." >> > I assume that you mean "topologically meaningful addresses" instead >> > of "identity meaningful addresses". >> > >> >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
