Hi Éric, A new revision of the drafts has been submitted. Here is the link to the rfcdiff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-12.txt <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-12.txt>
Let me know if this revision does not address your concerns. Thanks Ciao L. > On 31 May 2022, at 16:36, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Éric, > > I will include the discussed changes in the next revision (tomorrow at latest > so that is available for the telechat) > > Ciao > > L. > > > >> On 31 May 2022, at 14:33, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Thank you, Luigi, for the fast reply ! >> >> Indeed, as you guessed, I made a mistake when copying & pasting from my >> ‘ballot template’ into your I-D... I really want to apologize [*] >> >> Understood for the ‘N’ discussion, still suggest to only use it for 12 bits >> but this is cosmetic. Up to the authors. >> >> The proposed text for the security consideration is an improvement to my >> eyes. Again up to the authors. >> >> Hope this will help the document, >> >> Regards, >> >> -éric >> >> [*] as a lame excuse, have a look on my ‘to review’ list >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/ >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/> (knowing that last >> week was partly ‘off’ in most of Europe as you know). >> >> From: Luigi Iannone <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 13:11 >> To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: The IESG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Padma Pillay-Esnault >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with >> COMMENT) >> >> Hi Éric, >> >> Thank you very much for your review. >> Please find my comments inline. >> >> >>> On 31 May 2022, at 09:54, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: 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/ >>> >>> <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/ >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis/> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, review of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11 >>> >>> Thank you for the work put into this document. >>> >>> Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some >>> non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only >>> for >>> my own education), and some nits. >>> >>> Special thanks to Padma Pillay-Esnault for the shepherd's write-up including >>> the WG consensus and the intended status. >>> >>> I hope that this helps to improve the document, >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -éric >>> >>> ## DISCUSS >>> >>> As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ >>> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>, a >>> DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: >>> >>> ### Section 2.2 >>> >> >> I miss the DISCUSS point here, and there is not section 2.2 (may be a cut >> and paste error?) >> >> >> >>> ## COMMENTS >>> >>> ### Section 6 >>> >>> Just wondering why having an algorithm defined for 'N' while the versions >>> are >>> always on 12 bits. >> >> At the very very beginning there were a couple of options on where to place >> the version number in the header (original suggestion was in replacement of >> the Loc-Status-Bits). So, we described the general algorithm without >> specifying the real size of the field. >> >> >> >>> >>> ### Section 8 >>> >>> ``` >>> Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD >>> only be used in trusted and closed deployments. >>> ``` >>> >>> An explanation of why and how would be welcome. Feel free to ignore this >>> comment though as this is the usual recommendation for any tunneling >>> mechanism >>> w/o authentication/confidentiality. >>> >> >> The MUST NOT is actually part of the overall review and discussion that has >> been held about 6830bis and 6833bis (and 6834bis). >> Consensus was on the MUST NOT be used. We can actually merge the sentence >> with the previous paragraph to highlight the link with those documents: >> >> This document builds on the specification and operation of the LISP >> control and data planes. The Security Considerations of >> [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis#ref-I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis>] >> and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis#ref-I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis>] >> apply, as such >> Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD >> only be used in trusted and closed deployments. A >> thorough security analysis of LISP is documented in [RFC7835 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7835>]. >> >> >> Would this work better? >> >>> ## NITS >>> >>> ### Section 6 >>> >>> s/MUST consist in an increment by one the older/MUST consist in an >>> increment by >>> one of the older/ ? Moreover, 'increment' is usually understood as 'add 1' >>> so >>> no need to add 'by one' in the sentence >> >> Thanks. Will fix as suggested. >> >> Thank you again for the review. >> >> Ciao >> >> L. >> >> >> >>> >>> ## 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. >>> >>> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md >>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md> >>> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments >>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
