Hi Lars, Thank you very much for reviewing the draft. A few answers inline.
> On 25 May 2022, at 10:57, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10: No Objection > > 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10 > > CC @larseggert > > ## Comments > > ### Section 6, paragraph 8 > ``` > 1. V1 = V2 : The Map-Version numbers are the same. > > 2. V2 > V1 : if and only if > > V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(N-1) > > OR > > V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(N-1) > > 3. V1 > V2 : otherwise. > ``` > Shouldn't this include cases for if either V1 or V2 is the Null Map-Version? > You actually do this if V1 and V2 are not Null Map-Version. Will add a sentence to clarify. > ### Section 6.1, paragraph 0 > ``` > 6.1. The Null Map-Version > ``` > It might have been cleaner to actually define a one-bit "Null > Map-Version" flag and use an 11-bit number space, instead of > overloading the 0x0000 version. That would have eliminated the > need for a lot of special-casing in the arithmetic. Yes, this could have been an option. > > ### Inclusive language > > Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more > guidance: > > * Term `invalid`; alternatives might be `not valid`, `unenforceable`, `not > binding`, `inoperative`, `illegitimate`, `incorrect`, `improper`, > `unacceptable`, `inapplicable`, `revoked`, `rescinded` > Absolutely. We will fix the language, thanks. Ciao L. > ## Nits > > All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose > to > address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by > automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there > will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you > did with these suggestions. > > ### Boilerplate > > Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in > the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD > License". > > ### Grammar/style > > #### Section 6.1, paragraph 5 > ``` > C Map-Cache for the source EID is up to date. If one or both of the above pre > ^^^^^^^^^^ > ``` > It appears that hyphens are missing in the adjective "up-to-date". > > #### "A.1.", paragraph 2 > ``` > LISP Domain A is able to check whether or not the PITR is using the latest m > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ``` > Consider shortening this phrase to just "whether". It is correct though if you > mean "regardless of whether". > > #### "A.2.1.", paragraph 2 > ``` > the Proxy-ETR is able to check whether or not the mapping has changed. A.3. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ``` > Consider shortening this phrase to just "whether". It is correct though if you > mean "regardless of whether". > > ## Notes > > This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the > [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into > individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. > > [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md > [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments > [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool > > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
