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

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2024-07-12
Requested 2024-06-21
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Dino Farinacci , Luigi Iannone
I-D last updated 2025-02-05 (Latest revision 2024-12-09)
Completed reviews Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Rich Salz (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Timothy Winters (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Rich Salz
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/WuX0OzTii2b8qLnGurPx_OQKF9A
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 17)
Result Serious issues
Completed 2024-07-09
review-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-08-secdir-lc-salz-2024-07-09-00
This is a very short draft that adds "names" to LISP identifiers.

Major nit: Why is ASCII used for names rather than UTF-8? Related, no mention
of punycode as a UTF8 alternative. If UTF8 was considered and then rejected as
not needed, there should probably be a justfication for that decision in the
document.

A document which is part of a system "which are intended to replace most use of
IP addresses" that limits names to the ASCII character set should not be
approved.

Minor nit: "Distinguished Name" has a long history with X.509 certificates and
I could not get past my confusion. Is another name possible?  Okay if the
answer is no.