[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: Last Call <draft-ietf-lisp-lig-04.txt>

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Wed, 10 August 2011 19:25 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:26:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN6a-mHy2Zqt0tRYUc0yK4vjkzoNB9WChDGZ271h-gs1mQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-lisp-lig.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307d04caab797e04aa2ba721"
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: Last Call <draft-ietf-lisp-lig-04.txt>
Precedence: list

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-lisp-lig-04
Reviewer:  Mary Barnes
Review Date:  10 August 2011
IETF LC End Date:  12 August 2011

Summary:  Ready with comments/nits

Comments/minor issues:
------------------------------------

- Section 3, Routing Locator definition: The third sentence is a little
difficult to parse.  I would suggest to reword something like the following
 (based on my interpretation of what the text is intended to say):
OLD:
      Typically, RLOCs are
      numbered from topologically-aggregatable blocks that are assigned
      to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global
      Internet; where the topology is defined by the connectivity of
      provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as PA addresses.
NEW:
      Typically, RLOCs are
      numbered from topologically-aggregatable blocks that are assigned
      to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global
      Internet.  Thus, the topology is defined by the connectivity of
      provider networks and RLOCs can be thought of as PA addresses.

Also, you'll have to pardon my ignorance, but it's not obvious to me what PA
stands for. I googled and I think it's Provider Aggregatable (and not
Physical Address, which was my first reaction).  I also found it expanded in
draft-lisp-eid-block, which has a definition of RLOC that is mostly verbatim
to this one, which makes me wonder why the terms need to be redefined in
this document and isn't there the potential for the definitions to become
inconsistent?

- Section 3, Endpoint ID definition.  It's not clear to me how SIP relates
to LISP.   I would think it's sufficient to use a DNS lookup as the example
and delete the non-specific reference to a "SIP Exchange".

Nits:
-----

- Section 2, 2nd paragraph: "Map Resolvers" -> "Map-Resolvers"
- Section 3, 2nd bullet: "Map Replier" -> "Map-Replier"
- Section 3, last paragraph: "for lig initiating site" -> "for the lig
initiating site"
- Section 3, last paragraph: shouldn't "lig self" be "ligging yourself"?
- Section 4.1, last paragraph before sample output for ligging yourself:
"to originating site" -> "to the originating site"

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: Last Call <draft-ietf-l… Mary Barnes