Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13
review-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13-rtgdir-lc-hardwick-2018-09-09-00

Hi there

I have done a routing directorate review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/?include_text=1

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 Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: 7 Sep 2018
IETF LC End Date: 31 Aug 2018
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Comments
This was my first foray into LISP, so I also read draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis
and draft-ietf-lisp-introduction as ramp-up.  I found all three documents to be
very readable and useful.

I think this document is ready to be published.  I noted a few minor comments
and questions as I read through it, below.

sec3: Map-Register contains “one or more RLOCs to reach ETR(s)”.  How do you
deregister all RLOCs for an EID?

sec5: (Diagrams) It seems a bit redundant to specify the IPv4/6 and UDP header
formats here.  Just refer to the RFCs.

sec5: “When a UDP Map-Reply Map-Notify”  <- insert comma

sec5.1: What about code point 7?  Not assigned?  Reserved?

sec6.1: “from those sites to which” should be “to those sites to which”

sec6.1: “for the last minute” is arbitrary and should be left to the
implementation / deployment to decide IMO.

sec7.1: Have you considered using multi-hop BFD instead of RLOC probing?

Best regards
Jon