Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27: 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 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-rfc6833bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Two issues rise to DISCUSS level, IMO: Sec 5.7. Is the intent that the Map-Notifies are only retransmitted if they are unsolicited? If not, repeated Map-Registers could result in a storm of Map-Notifies. Sec 7.1. I very well may have missed something, but it doesn't look like the Map-Request is authenticated. So how can the ETR safely update its Map Cache based on the information in the Map-Reply? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 5. Please clarify that the 576B and 1280B limits include the entire IP packet. Sec 5.4. Does the "weight" refer to the percentage of packets or bytes? Sec 5.5. The first sentence should suggest that the Map Reply could return multiple EID prefixes. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
