The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments
RFC 6831

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-02-08)
No email
send info
The title talks about "LISP for multicast environments" but the Abstract
is specific to "inter-domain multicast routing". Should the document
title be updated accordingly or is the Abstract wrong?

It is possible that the confusion is at bullet 2 of Section 2 where it
is implied that a "domain" is a LISP site such that "inter-domain" means
between LISP sites. It would be helpful not to re-use "domain" in ths
way (we are used to it meaning inter-AS and inter-area).  

Since multicast between LISP sites is just a special case of multicast
using LISP, you could stike the text from the Abstract.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-05 for -)
No email
send info
draft-ietf-lisp-ms contains a section entitled "Open Issues and Considerations", which provides a good start toward understanding the parameters of the experiment we're engaging in here, and perhaps some dimensions for measuring success. It would be helpful for this document to contain a similar section.

The terminology section repeats definitions from the base LISP spec. This seems like a bad idea. It would be better to reference those definitions and here simply provide the extended information that applies only to multicast environments.

The Security Considerations section seems rather sparse. Does the use of LISP in a multicast environment truly have no security implications whatsoever?

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-05)
No email
send info
In the numbered list of scenarios in section 9.1, there are a couple
of occurrences of the term "LISP sites."  Should "LISP sites" be
replaced by "LISP-Multicast sites"?

Is it assumed that a uLISP site uses non-LISP transport for multicast?
If so, it would be helpful for the document to state that situation
explicitly.

In the Security Considerations section, if this document introduces
no additional security concerns beyond those in LISP base spec,
that assertion should be made explicitly.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-04 for -)
No email
send info
  Please consider the editorial comments in the Gen-ART Review by
  Kathleen Moriarty on 3-October-2011.  The review can be found here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06774.html

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-17)
No email
send info
- It'd be good to know if this use of LISP claims some benefit 
over "ordinary" multicast, or if you're just making multicast
work ok in a LISP environment. It doesn't matter much, but it'd
be nice to say so the reader knows whether or not to get excited:-)

- The intro leaves me wondering if a multicast group address is regarded
as an EID or RLOC, or if it varies or if it matters. Just wondering.
That is described at the start of section 5, but earlier would be good
too.

- You may want to expand the RPF acronym. 

- p5, 1st para after bullets - the 1st sentence talks about "protocols"
but the 2nd talks about "the protocol" - seems wrong.  

- Section 10, 1st para, last sentence is missing something, maybe
s/need to/and need to/?

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-01-17)
No email
send info
"By using the traffic engineering features of LISP" needs a ref.

The subtleties of different m/c paths surely belongs after the basic description rather than as the first item

The protocols in section 7 need references

Mpriority seems to lack a definition

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) (was No Objection) No Record

No Record (2011-10-05 for -)
No email
send info
I support Peter's DISCUSS