Hi Alberto, Just a few nits - replace [RFC8060] with RFC 8060 in the abstract. As per the style guide [ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7322#section-4.3] - the Abstract must not contain citations! - Expand CID
And a suggestion - perhaps add text in section 3 to explicitly state that "[RFC8060] does not explain how an implementation should handle unrecognized LCAF Type." Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 4:58 PM Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <natal= [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dhruv, > > > > Thanks again for your review! In the -11 version of the draft [1] we have > expanded the LISP acronym on first use, according to your good suggestion. > > > > Please kindly let us know any comment you might have in the new version. > > > > Thanks! > > Alberto > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-11 > > > > *From: *Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:49 PM > *To: *Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected] < > [email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10 > > 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
