Early Review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07
review-ietf-lisp-ddt-07-rtgdir-early-niven-jenkins-2016-08-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-08-03
Requested 2016-07-19
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Dale Worley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review review-ietf-lisp-ddt-07-rtgdir-early-niven-jenkins-2016-08-03
Posted at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg03048.html
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2016-08-03
Review completed: 2016-08-03

Review
review-ietf-lisp-ddt-07-rtgdir-early-niven-jenkins-2016-08-03

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir



Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review Date: 2nd August 2016
Intended Status: Experimental


Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:
I found the document to be easily readable even though I am not well versed in LISP.

Minor issues:
1) The document appears quite light on RFC2119 language (MUST/SHOULD). There are probably areas of the protocol specification that may benefit from more use of RFC2119 language.

To give one example: Section 7.3.2 says "this Map-Reply will indicate the least-specific XEID-prefix matching the requested XEID for which no delegations exist and will have a TTL value of 15 minutes.” is that really a “SHOULD [or MUST?] have a TTL value of 15 minutes”? 

2) In a few places the document refers to a “proxy Map-Reply service” without really explaining what it is. A description in the terminology section would help, or a reference to another document that defines the term.


HTH
Ben