Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04
review-ietf-lisp-impact-04-genart-lc-housley-2015-10-14-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lisp-impact |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-10-19 | |
Requested | 2015-10-08 | |
Authors | Damien Saucez , Luigi Iannone , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Florin Coras | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-14 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Hilarie Orman (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-impact by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2015-10-14 |
review-ietf-lisp-impact-04-genart-lc-housley-2015-10-14-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2015-10-14 IETF LC End Date: 2015-10-19 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready. Major Concerns: Section 3 says: "[KIF13] and [CDLC] explore different EDI prefix space sizes, and still show results that are consistent and equivalent to the above assumptions." It seems like it would be valuable to include a sentence or two about the way that EDI space is obtained. Minor Concerns: I found the Introduction and LISP in a nutshell sections a bit too much like marketing material. I think the document would be better if the tone was more like an engineering analysis. Perhaps this paragraph can be moved to the top: An introduction to LISP can be found in [RFC7215]. The LISP specifications are given in [RFC6830], [RFC6833], [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt], [RFC6836], [RFC6832], [RFC6834]. Section 5 has very little content on "business models". There is some, but not much. It seems odd that it appears in the section heading. Other Comments: Please spell out "DPI" and "DFZ" on first use. Section 4 says: "Without LISP, operators are forced to centralize service anchors in custom built boxes." This seems a bit too strong. Perhaps: "Without LISP, operators centralize service anchors." Section 4.1: s/(non-LISP)routing/(non-LISP) routing/