Hi Martin, Thanks for the review.
Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2023 22:43 > À : The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Objet : Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-12: > (with COMMENT) > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-12: 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-pubsub/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > > Thanks to Magnus for the TSVART review, and the authors for the > extended (!) > discussion of that review. > > I have a few notes: > > (S1) the sequence of events omits the Map-Notify-Ack in response > to the initial > Map-Notify. > [Med] ACK. A proposal to update the text can be seen at: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub/pull/15/files. > (S5) "If the Map-Request has only one ITR-RLOC with AFI=0..." > I assume this Map-Request has the I-bit set? > [Med] Yes. There is a MUST statement under the I-bit bullet right after Figure 1. Likewise, the N-bit has to be set, otherwise the Map-Server won't reply with a Map-Notify. > (S5) The paragraph about congestion control that begins with "As a > reminder..." > is probably better in S6, as originally discussed in the thread, > because it's > the Publish Map-Notifies that are the most likely to trigger > congestion. > [Med] We moved it to S5 because retransmission can happen also during registration. Will think about this further. > (S6) Just to clarify, the Map-Notify has no change from RFC9301 > with respect to > flags (unlike the Map-Request)? > [Med] ACK. > (S6) "...it may stop trying to send the Map-Notify" > This seems too weak to me; why not cancel the subscription, or > better yet, > cancel all subscriptions to that xTR if it's unresponsive? > > [Med] This is to accommodate transient failures (xTR overload, xTR is up and running but the forwarding path is broken, etc.). FWIW, a discussion on this specific point can be found at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-boucadair-lisp-pubsub-flow-examples-01.html#name-failed-notification-with-ret. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
