Hi Paul, 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 1 Jun 2022, at 10:20, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for reviewing the draft. > Please see inline. > > >> On 31 May 2022, at 22:03, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Paul Wouters 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/ >> 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: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> #1 map-version rollover is defined (to skip the 0 version) but I also see: >> >> The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number greater (i.e., >> newer) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. Since >> the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map- >> Version number of its mapping is the correct one >> >> This would imply rollover to a smaller number is not expected to occur ? > > It is expected to occur, actually. > Text is a bit misleading. > Will change it to: > > The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number newer than > the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. Since > the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map- > Version number of its mapping is the correct one > > Do you think it is better? > > >> >> #2 MUST NOT or SHOULD ? >> >> Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be >> used in trusted and closed deployments. >> >> This sentence seems to contradict itself. I would turn the SHOULD into a MUST > > I agree it make sense to put a MUST there. > Will change it. > > Thanks > > Ciao > > L.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
