Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-00
review-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-00-rtgdir-early-hopps-2022-10-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-11-30
Requested 2022-10-18
Requested by Luigi Iannone
Authors Dino Farinacci
I-D last updated 2022-10-25
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christian Hopps
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/x-b4I6uko8dhtCiTJcdijuM4vzg
Reviewed revision 00 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-10-25
review-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-00-rtgdir-early-hopps-2022-10-25-00
Hello,

    I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of
    this draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding/

    The routing directorate will, on request from the working group
    chair, perform an "early" review of a draft before it is submitted
    for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at
    any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document.
    The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the
    document has reached.

    As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the
    review was to determine whether the document is ready to be
    published. Please consider my comments along with the other
    working group last call comments.

    For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
    ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-00
Reviewer: Christian Hopps
Review Date: October 25, 2022
Intended Status: Experimental

    Summary:

No issues found. This documents is ready to proceed to the IESG.

    Comments:

The document is well written and easy to understand. Personally, I
would have gone with a length value for performance and implementation
simplicity; however, seeing as this document has already been around
and reviewed for a while (and I believe from reading the mailing list,
it's already deployed), and more importantly the WG (the experts in
LISP) have had this point brought up and are happy with the existing
solution, I see no reason to push back against it.

Thanks,
Chris.