Some comment to the "Lews draft": - already in the abstract the draft talks about LIPS prefixes which seem to be central for the document. But in the section of "Definition of Terms" there is not definition for the term "LISP prefix."
- EID prefix reachability seems to be different from LISP locator reachability which denotes existing mapping. Is this really the intention that there are two types of reachabilities? Should the mapping be cached in the ETR in order to be in reachable state, or des it suffice that there is in the mapping system a binding? - step 8 in section 5.2 How does the ITR know that the packet is destined to non-LISP site? The incoming packet was LISP encapsulated. Would that imply that the site is LISP site? Obviously the ITR needs to make a EID->RLOC map query and fail with that to know that there the destination is non LISP. Section 5.4 First sentence "There are several that ..." => "There are several reasons that ..." Section 5.5 Append => Prepend? Regards Hannu
