Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04: No Objection
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 https://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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-impact/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - section 3: "proven by several studies" without references is bad - we don't want blatent assertion in RFCs so please add some references. That could be done via forward pointers to later in the document or just by adding the refs here as well and explaining them more later. Or else delete the sentence as being redundant. - section 3, para starting "Results indicate...": Which results? I can't tell from how it's writen. - section 4: ConteXtream needs a reference as does the tier-1 operator (even if that has to be "private communication"at least I'd know to go ask the authors if I care. - I think you could note that as a map-and-encap scheme LISP also offers the potential for encryption of traffic between xTRs and reference the relevant lisp-crypto draft. That could go where you add a mention of rfc 7258 if you do add that. (In response to I think Spencer's comment.) - As with Kathleen, I think the secdir review deserves a substantive response. Please give it one. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
