Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10
review-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10-tsvart-lc-nishida-2022-05-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2022-05-19
Requested 2022-05-04
Authors Luigi Iannone , Damien Saucez , Olivier Bonaventure
I-D last updated 2022-05-17
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -10 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -14 by Timothy Winters
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoshifumi Nishida
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/kx-fDj8AwIpJYZbHGAxRJEf1EuU
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 14)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2022-05-17
review-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10-tsvart-lc-nishida-2022-05-17-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
         Standard document. but I believe it will be better to address
         the following points.


1: It would be better to clarify the following points in the protocol for
   registering Map Version number.

   * How many versions of mapping should be maintained by routers and servers?
     Only the latest one or else?
   * Are we allowed to send a new Map-Register message while waiting for
     another Map-Register message?
   * What will be the action when Map-Server receives the version number
     that they are not expecting? Discard or else?
   * What will be the action when Map-Register message reaches retransmission
     limits?

2: Page 3 Section 1:
   "If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send a Map-Request containing
    the updated mapping to the ETR,"

      -> could it be "to the ITR"?

3: Page 6 Section 6:
   "An update in the version number (i.e., a newer version) consists of
    incrementing by one the older version number"

      -> This seems to be an integral part of the protocol.
         I think using MUST here would be preferable.

4: Page 6 Section 6:
   I am wondering what is the use case for comparing two version numbers.
   I might miss something, but it seems to me that we just need to check
   whether the version number is the expected one or not.
   It might be better to explain the use case for it if there is any.

--
Yoshi