IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt

Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Tue, 02 August 2016 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BE612D0A0; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 03:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DySeft-Ek3Hr; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 03:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (smtp.123-reg.co.uk [94.136.40.63]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0178612D08C; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 03:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 97e06318.skybroadband.com ([151.224.99.24] helo=[192.168.0.4]) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1bUWaQ-0009RS-86; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:06:11 +0100
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:06:07 +0100
Message-Id: <627E28A3-CA72-47CF-914B-3DDBC043CBEA@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: rtg-ads@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
X-KLMS-Rule-ID: 1
X-KLMS-Message-Action: clean
X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Status: not scanned, license restriction
X-KLMS-AntiPhishing: not scanned, license restriction
X-KLMS-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Security 8.0 for Linux Mail Server, version 8.0.1.721, bases: 2016/08/02 03:38:00 #7680924
X-KLMS-AntiVirus-Status: Clean, skipped
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/soyhNBNvHST9e8UeUZXqWMfhkWo>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-ddt@tools.ietf.org, lisp@ietg.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:06:17 -0000

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 ​http://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-ddt-07.txt
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review Date: 2nd August 2016
Intended Status: Experimental


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

Comments:
I found the document to be easily readable even though I am not well versed in LISP.

Minor issues:
1) The document appears quite light on RFC2119 language (MUST/SHOULD). There are probably areas of the protocol specification that may benefit from more use of RFC2119 language.

To give one example: Section 7.3.2 says "this Map-Reply will indicate the least-specific XEID-prefix matching the requested XEID for which no delegations exist and will have a TTL value of 15 minutes.” is that really a “SHOULD [or MUST?] have a TTL value of 15 minutes”? 

2) In a few places the document refers to a “proxy Map-Reply service” without really explaining what it is. A description in the terminology section would help, or a reference to another document that defines the term.


HTH
Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email