Hi Thanks, please see inline my replies (removed text for which we all agree):
> [snip] > > > > >>> * The discussion of SMR should contain a reference to 6830 or a > >>> brief discussion of how the SMR is used. > >>> > > > > Could you please elaborate further this comment? > > > > "Solicit-Map-Request (SMR): SMR is an explicit mechanism to update > > mapping information. In particular a special type of Map-Request can > > be sent on demand by ETRs to request refreshing a mapping. Upon > > reception of a SMR message, the ITR must refresh the bindings by > > sending a Map-Request to the Mapping System." > > There are more interesting conditions/rules for the use of SMR that are > only found in RFC 6830. I am suggesting adding a reference to 6830 at > this point so readers know where to go to find more info on the SMR. > > Agreed, I´ll add a sentence. Further uses of SMRs are documented in [RFC6830]. > > > >>> 8. Section 5 > >>> > >>> * I would suggest having a reference to both the MIP and the NEMO > >>> specs when discussing mobility. LISP has the potential to > >>> operate in a manner conducive with NEMO if the xTR acts as the > >>> NEMO Mobile Router. > >> > >> Well if we do that then there are a ton of other cases where a xTR > >> can be co-located with other functions (i.e. a simple reference is > >> say a wifi AP). So singlingly out MIP/NEMO seems to be favoring > >> these technologies versus others. Why would we want to do that? > >> > >> Plus, it raises questions more than simplifies the understanding of > >> LISP. This is an intro document. > > > > What about adding the following sentence at the end of section 5? > > > > The decoupled identity and location provided by LISP allows it to > > operate with other layer 2 and layer 3 mobility solutions. > > The text talks about both network (NEMO) and host (MIP) mobility. I am > not concerned with LISP interacting with those protocols, I am thinking > of how LISP replaces those protocols. The descriptions in Section 5 > align with very well (i.e., the first paragraph describes LISP replacing > NEMO and the second paragraph describes LISP replacing MIP). My > proposal was to simply add references in those paragraphs to the > mobility protocol that LISP is approximately. > > I do like your proposed addition in order to highlight that LISP will > not interfere with other mobility solutions. > > What about adding two sentences at the end of each paragraph: This functionality is similar to [RFC NEMO]. This functionality is similar to [RFC MIP] [RFC MIPv6]. [snip] >>> 10. I am surprised that there are 2 Security Consideration > >>> sections (7 & 9). I am even more surprised that one says > >>> "Nothing new here" and the other actually discusses potential > >>> issues with the LISP approach. > >>> > > > > My fault, Section 7 should be “LISP Security Considerations” > > > > Section 9 describes the security considerations for the document > > itself. > > I think maintaining two security consideration sections will be > confusing. Either document that *this* document introduces no new > security issues or have the security considerations section summarize > the security impacts of LISP. > > Agreed, will do the latter (so Section 9 is now Section 7). > Regards, > Brian > > > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
