Fixed. New draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-04 posted. Din
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-03.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Dec 14, 2023, at 6:31 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just two more minor nits: - Please include a reference and the boilerplate > for RFC 2119. > - Please update the reference from RFC 1700 (obsolete) to RFC 3232 (current). > Thanks, > Alberto > From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:05 PM > To: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Distinguished Name comments > Hi Dino, > Changes look mostly good to me, thanks! Just one comment, how about this > wording for the last paragraph of section 6? > > It is RECOMMENDED that each use-case register their Distinguish Names with > a unique Instance-ID. For any use-cases which require different uses for > Distinguish Names within an Instance-ID MUST define their own Instance-ID and > structure syntax for the name registered to the Mapping System. See the > encoding procedures in [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for an example. > Also, please consider double checking that we are consistent with names > (capitalizations, dashes, etc) through the document. I think the official > spellings are “EID-Prefix” and “Distinguished Name”, it might be worth to > scan the document and update where needed. > Thanks! > Alberto > From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:22 PM > To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Distinguished Name comments > Thanks for the comments Roberto. See comments inline. > > > First my apologies, this is long overdue. I’m trying to catch up with my > > shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding and I have some > > comments/suggestions on the current draft. > > I have submitted draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-03 to reflect your comments > with a diff file attached. > > > > • Sec 3: You describe that when a DN is used as an EID, an exact match > > > is performed (which is correct). However, this is described in the format > > > section of the document, shouldn’t this be discussed somewhere else > > > (maybe on its own section)? I know this is a very short document, but > > > having that behavior described in the format section seems odd to me. No > > > strong opinion though. > > I have added a new section. > > > • Sec 4: You say it in the title of the section already, but it might > > be interesting that on the body of the section you mention that the listed > > use-cases are examples and more importantly that we explicitly say that > > that other use-cases not listed are possible as well. Typo: s/ascii/ASCII > > Made the change. > > > • Sec. 5: I think that this section should talk about unique > > Instance-IDs (IIDs), not VPNs, so that the text is more general while > > preserving the considerations about name collisions. We can point to the > > VPN draft to mention one example of how a particular use-case is > > registering DNs in unique IIDs, see also the next point on this. > > Made the change. > > > • Sec. 8: If we talk about IIDs in Section 5, there is no need to keep > > the VPN draft as a Normative Reference and could be moved to Informative, > > easing the RFC process. > > Fixed. > > Thanks again, > Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
