Hi Dino, all, Thank you for sharing this update.
I have some comments about the following text: == This section will be the authoritative source for allocating LISP Type values and for defining LISP control message formats. For Shared Extension types, see [RFC8113<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8113>]. Current allocations are: Reserved: 0 b'0000' LISP Map-Request: 1 b'0001' LISP Map-Reply: 2 b'0010' LISP Map-Register: 3 b'0011' LISP Map-Notify: 4 b'0100' LISP Map-Notify-Ack: 5 b'0101' LISP Map-Referral: 6 b'0110' LISP Info-Request/Reply: 7 b'0111' LISP Encapsulated Control Message: 8 b'1000' Not Assigned 9-14 b'1001'- b'1110' LISP Shared Extension Message: 15 b'1111' [RFC8113<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8113>] == · At least the first sentence should be reworded to be aligned with RFC8113 (which is the reference for allocating LISP type values). If you want the bis document to be authoritative for that, the only way for that is to merge RFC8113 in the bis document. · An IANA section is to be added to the bis document. · I wouldn't list "Not Assigned 9-14 b'1001'- b'1110'" here because these values can be allocated in the future. I would avoid mismatches with the IANA registry. · "LISP Map-Notify-Ack: 5 b'0101'" and "LISP Info-Request/Reply: 7 b'0111'" are not assigned yet by IANA. The document should include requests in the new IANA section; these values can be indicated as preferred values according to RFC8113: The values in the ranges 5-7 and 9-14 can be assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>]. Documents that request for a new LISP packet type may indicate a preferred value in the corresponding IANA sections. · "LISP Map-Referral: 6 b'0110'" is about a temporary assignment not a permanent one. · The document may include a discussion about the exhaustion of type values. That discussion can remind the reader that an extended space is provisioned for that purpose : "15.subtype(0-1023)". · The document should IMO include some text to encourage designers to use the "15.subtype(1024-4095)" in early stages of extension specifications. The WG will decide whether a type code will be assigned in the standard track ranges. Thank you. Cheers, Med De : lisp [mailto:lisp-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Dino Farinacci Envoyé : vendredi 14 avril 2017 20:34 À : lisp@ietf.org list Objet : [lisp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03.txt Folks, since RFC8113 was recently published, I made this small change to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03: [cid:image002.png@01D2BF44.67FA6470] Thanks, Dino Begin forwarded message: From: internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03.txt Date: April 14, 2017 at 11:32:14 AM PDT To: <i-d-annou...@ietf.org<mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org>> Cc: lisp@ietf.org<mailto:lisp@ietf.org> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol of the IETF. Title : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane Authors : Vince Fuller Dino Farinacci Albert Cabellos Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03.txt Pages : 38 Date : 2017-04-14 Abstract: This document describes the Control-Plane and Mapping Service for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), implemented by two new types of LISP-speaking devices -- the LISP Map-Resolver and LISP Map-Server -- that provides a simplified "front end" for one or more Endpoint ID to Routing Locator mapping databases. By using this control-plane service interface and communicating with Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different database designs. Since these devices implement the "edge" of the LISP infrastructure, connect directly to LISP-capable Internet end sites, and comprise the bulk of LISP-speaking devices, reducing their implementation and operational complexity should also reduce the overall cost and effort of deploying LISP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org<mailto:lisp@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
