Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-04-12
Requested 2022-03-29
Authors Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Anton Smirnov , Vrushali Ashtaputre , Dino Farinacci
I-D last updated 2022-04-11
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2022-04-11
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2022-04-11
IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


The document is well written, and easy to read and understand. However, I do
have a couple of issues.

Major issues:


I do wonder why the document is published as Experimental, however, due to the
following reasons:


   The document defines usage of the Type value 255.


   Section 3 says:

      "If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific
       LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
       message and it SHOULD create a log message."

   This sounds like an update to LISP.


   Section 3 defines new header fields.

Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:


Section 1 says:

   “The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
   LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP

Is “allows” the best wording? Where organizations previously disallowed to do

Would it be more correct to say “defines how organizations can create…”?