Hi Dino, In some protocols that I am aware of, it is usual to state that the variable-length portion in the TLVs/objects is 4-byte aligned. But looking at RFC 8060, I see that LISP does not follow this approach for any of the LCAF and it works just fine without it. I agree with you that no change is required then. Thanks for taking my comment into consideration.
Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:19 AM Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
