Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08
review-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08-rtgdir-lc-lindem-2024-07-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-07-12
Requested 2024-06-21
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Dino Farinacci
I-D last updated 2024-07-09
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Rich Salz (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Timothy Winters (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Acee Lindem
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/wuIT2mDxTknK6UjhluBHs0fVYp4
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 14)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-07-09
review-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08-rtgdir-lc-lindem-2024-07-09-00
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 Early Review/Last Call  comments that you receive, and strive to
resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: 07/09/2024
IETF LC End Date: 2024-07-12
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
This document specifies the Distinguished Name Address Family encoding
for Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). It also
includes usecases for including Distinguished Names in LISP messages.

My review didn't uncover any problems with the encodings or use cases.
I do have some minor comments and some editorial suggestions.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues:

I have the following minor comments.

  1. In section 3, could you more precisely define the places where
     the new encoding is used? I guess in any LISP message where an
     EID or RLOC is specified?
  2. In section 5, the final sentence fragment didn't parse and it
     wasn't obvious to me how to edit it - "As well as identifying
     the router name...".
  3. In section 9.2, The description of the onboarding process includes
     very specific details that aren't fully explained. Would it be
     possible to describe the use case at a higher level?
  4. Remove change log prior to publication.

Nits:

   I've attached some editorial suggestions.

Thanks,
Acee