Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Alvaro Retana Yes
Erik Kline No Objection
Lars Eggert No Objection
Thanks to Christer Holmberg for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/w8r32njasR5PwAa8-Y4Fv0dHw1s).
Paul Wouters No Objection
Robert Wilton No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
(Revised ballot) Thanks to the authors and IANA for updating the formal name of "https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type" to be "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types." ** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type = 255”). It should read TBD in both places. Suggesting 255, if that is the desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads).
Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Objection
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is short and easy to read. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), including one that should have been a blocking DISCUSS but the fix is so easy that I am balloting NO OBJECTION. Special thanks to Luigi Iannone for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus and the experimental status. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## Abstract & section 1 The word "internal" is rather ambiguous. ## Section 1 I lack the context of course, but isn't "particular LISP deployments" more for network operators and less for vendors (like in the doc title) ? I.e, using "Organisation-specific LCAF" seems more appropriate. ## Section 3 Figure 1 states "Type = TBD" but the text specifies "The "Type" field MUST be set to the value 255". Using a text similar to section 6 would be an easy fix. BTW, I was about to raise a blocking DISCUSS on this one. Would this LCAF be used by organisations with any IEEE OUI ? I.e., should there be a non-recommended option to use a specific OUI in such a case ?
Andrew Alston No Record
Francesca Palombini No Record
John Scudder No Record
Martin Duke No Record
Murray Kucherawy No Record
Warren Kumari No Record