Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10
review-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10-rtgdir-lc-dhody-2022-04-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-04-12
Requested 2022-03-29
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Anton Smirnov , Vrushali Ashtaputre , Dino Farinacci
I-D last updated 2022-04-26
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 Dhruv Dhody
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/dyyZftoyWWdigRMJlhkcjbGz7oM
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Result Has issues
Completed 2022-04-26
review-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10-rtgdir-lc-dhody-2022-04-26-00
I was assigned the reviewer today. I noticed that the IESG ballot is done and
the document is approved, I am not sure how valuable this review would be but
anyways...

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
‚Äčhttp://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-vendor-lcaf
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review Date: 2022-04-26
IETF LC End Date: Over
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

Comments:
- The document is simple, clear and straightforward.

Major Issues:
- No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
- Is there any padding requirement that should be mentioned for the Internal
format in alignment with the rest of LISP? - Consider if adding an example in
the appendix would be useful for a casual reader.

Nits:
- LISP does not have a * next to it at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and thus should be
expanded on first use!

Thanks!
Dhruv