Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
RFC 6834
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I find it very regrettable that this document was brough forward for IESG review before the architecture and protocol on which it depends. The very first paragraph of the body of the document is a normative reference to the base specification which is currently in AD Review with a new revision required and a good dolop of questions from the AD for the authors to resolve. This means that any review of this document is necessarily moot. I am very sorry, but I may have to come back and extend my Discuss after we have reviewed the base spec. I recognise that this issue is not actionable by the authors, and simply supply it as a comment for the record. However, I strongly encourage the authors to keep a tight track of this document since it contains statements of protocol behavior that are lifted from the base LISP spec and which may be subject to change.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
It's hard to imagine that anyone would treat values as other than big endian, but it might be worth being explicit in the document.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I've cleared my Discuss.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
The comparison operator on the circular range of version numbers currently is not well defined when comparing against the value that's exactly half-way around the buffer (for example, if N were 3, it is not defined whether 1 is less than or greater than 5 (1<5<5 isn't true, nor is 5>1>1)).
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
If there's conflict in normative text between this and base, which takes precedence? I think you need to say, even if you believe there is no such conflict, just in case it turns out that there's some hidden conflict or the base draft changes after this one is done.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Record, No Objection) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my concerns
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) (was No Objection) No Record
I support Ron and Robert's DISCUSSes