Thanks Chris. The encoding is length based via the LCAF format. And now we are sync'ed with IS-IS and OSPF encodings.
Dino > On Oct 25, 2022, at 11:38 AM, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of > this draft. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding/ > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group > chair, perform an "early" review of a draft before it is submitted > for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at > any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. > The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the > document has reached. > > As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the > review was to determine whether the document is ready to be > published. Please consider my comments along with the other > working group last call comments. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Document: draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-00 > Reviewer: Christian Hopps > Review Date: October 25, 2022 > Intended Status: Experimental > > Summary: > > No issues found. This documents is ready to proceed to the IESG. > > Comments: > > The document is well written and easy to understand. Personally, I > would have gone with a length value for performance and implementation > simplicity; however, seeing as this document has already been around > and reviewed for a while (and I believe from reading the mailing list, > it's already deployed), and more importantly the WG (the experts in > LISP) have had this point brought up and are happy with the existing > solution, I see no reason to push back against it. > > Thanks, > Chris. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
