Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2015-10-14
IETF LC End Date: 2015-10-19
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready.
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.
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.
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/