Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-geo-14: Discuss
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-geo/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Dino, Thanks for the effort put into this specification. Please find below two DISCUSS points: # We need to define the experiment, goals, and criteria to declare failure/success. # How the encoding articulates with the various management pieces out there? We do currently have this structure: 268 0 1 2 3 269 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 270 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 271 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 272 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 273 | Type = 17 | Rsvd2 | Length | 274 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 275 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 276 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 277 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 278 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 279 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 281 | Altitude | 282 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 283 | Radius | Reserved | 284 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 285 | AFI | Address ... | 286 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ But draft-ietf-lisp-yang has currently this structure: | | +--:(geo-coordinates) | | | +--rw geo-coordinates | | | +--rw latitude? bits | | | +--rw latitude-degrees? uint8 | | | +--rw latitude-minutes? uint8 | | | +--rw latitude-seconds? uint8 | | | +--rw longitude? bits | | | +--rw longitude-degrees? uint16 | | | +--rw longitude-minutes? uint8 | | | +--rw longitude-seconds? uint8 | | | +--rw altitude? int32 | | | +--rw address? We also have the following in RFC9179: grouping geo-location: +-- geo-location +-- reference-frame | +-- alternate-system? string {alternate-systems}? | +-- astronomical-body? string | +-- geodetic-system | +-- geodetic-datum? string | +-- coord-accuracy? decimal64 | +-- height-accuracy? decimal64 +-- (location)? | +--:(ellipsoid) | | +-- latitude? decimal64 | | +-- longitude? decimal64 | | +-- height? decimal64 | +--:(cartesian) | +-- x? decimal64 | +-- y? decimal64 | +-- z? decimal64 +-- velocity | +-- v-north? decimal64 | +-- v-east? decimal64 | +-- v-up? decimal64 +-- timestamp? yang:date-and-time +-- valid-until? yang:date-and-time As the information that will be enclosed in LISP messages will need to be retrieved/provisioned, it is important to make sure how these graft together. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Compatibility with the GPS use in routing The document says in several places: Abstract: which is compatible with the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) encodings used by other routing protocols. Intro: This document proposes a new LCAF encoding for Geo-Coordinates, which is compatible with the one used in other routing protocols, namely OSPF [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols Section 4.1: The encoding format is consistent with the encoding used in other routing protocols, namely OSPF [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates]. However, and unless I’m mistaken, all those were expired since 2016/2017. Unless we have fresh data to back this claim, I would simply delete this sentence. # Compatibility with the GPS use in routing # nits ## abstract OLD: This document describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the LISP Architecture and Protocols. The functionality proposes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) encoding for such Geo-Coordinates, NEW: This document describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). Specifically, the document defines a new LISP ## Introduction (1) OLD: The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC9300] introduce two new NEW: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC9300] introduces two new (2) OLD: This document proposes a new LCAF NEW: This document defines a new LCAF Cheers, Med _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
