Hi Steward, see inline….
On 24 Aug 2018, at 12:58, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2018-08-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-06 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > This is a well written draft, and I assume that everyone in the WG is happy > that the reduction in size of the Nonce/Map-Version field will not be a > problem > in operational networks. > > However, I do have a question of why this is being published now on the > Standards Track with a normative reference to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis. > draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis is only a few weeks old. It will take its time to get > through the IETF process and of course technically may change. If > draft-ietf-lisp-gpe is approved by the IESG it will simply sit on the RFC > Editor's queue until draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis gets through the system, and even > then if there is a change to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis, then draft-ietf-lisp-gpe > may need to be pulled all the way back to the WG depending on the nature of > the > change. > > Maybe the plan is that ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis will only take a short while to > finish because I see that other bis drafts will also stall on it. If not I > would have thought that a better approach would be to make this experimental > and point to RFC6834. Then, when RFC6834bis is published to make this draft a > PS pointing to it. These are we small documents. I am not sure this would really be necessary. We do not expect big changes in any bis document, since they are just the PS version of deployed technology. So the risk to have the gee document come back to the WG to do any change is quite inexistent. > > Whatever the conclusion this matter will need to be clearly written up in the > Shepherd's report. I am the shepherd of the document and I duly pointed out this fact in my writeup, check point 14 of: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/shepherdwriteup/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/shepherdwriteup/> Ciao L. > > Major issues: No technical issues, but see summary. > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: None > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
