Dhruv, can you explain more specifically what you mean by padding? Since any LCAF encoding (even a vendor LCAF) has a length field, the encoding can be the exact number of bytes described by the length. So no padding is required.
Or did you mean something else? Dino > On Apr 26, 2022, at 7:49 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dhruv, > > Thanks for your review! You’re bringing good points. > > As per your comment on padding, it’s a good question but I cannot recall > right now any padding requirement in other LISP docs. A a quick search for > ‘padding' in rfc6833bis and RFC8060 shows not results. Maybe someone else on > the list can comment on padding requirements in LISP (if any)? > > Also, good point on expanding LISP on first use, we’ll make sure to do so in > the revised draft. > > Thanks! > Alberto > > From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:03 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]> > Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10 > > Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody > Review result: Has Issues > > I was assigned the reviewer today. I noticed that the IESG ballot is done and > the document is approved, I am not sure how valuable this review would be but > anyways... > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 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-vendor-lcaf > Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody > Review Date: 2022-04-26 > IETF LC End Date: Over > Intended Status: Experimental > > Summary: > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved > before publication. > > Comments: > - The document is simple, clear and straightforward. > > Major Issues: > - No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > - Is there any padding requirement that should be mentioned for the Internal > format in alignment with the rest of LISP? - Consider if adding an example in > the appendix would be useful for a casual reader. > > Nits: > - LISP does not have a * next to it at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and thus should be > expanded on first use! > > Thanks! > Dhruv > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
