Hi there I have done a routing directorate review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/?include_text=1
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 Reviewer: Jon Hardwick Review Date: 7 Sep 2018 IETF LC End Date: 31 Aug 2018 Intended Status: Proposed Standard Comments This was my first foray into LISP, so I also read draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis and draft-ietf-lisp-introduction as ramp-up. I found all three documents to be very readable and useful. I think this document is ready to be published. I noted a few minor comments and questions as I read through it, below. sec3: Map-Register contains “one or more RLOCs to reach ETR(s)”. How do you deregister all RLOCs for an EID? sec5: (Diagrams) It seems a bit redundant to specify the IPv4/6 and UDP header formats here. Just refer to the RFCs. sec5: “When a UDP Map-Reply Map-Notify” <- insert comma sec5.1: What about code point 7? Not assigned? Reserved? sec6.1: “from those sites to which” should be “to those sites to which” sec6.1: “for the last minute” is arbitrary and should be left to the implementation / deployment to decide IMO. sec7.1: Have you considered using multi-hop BFD instead of RLOC probing? Best regards Jon
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
