Hi Dino, Changes look mostly good to me, thanks! Just one comment, how about this wording for the last paragraph of section 6?
> It is RECOMMENDED that each use-case register their Distinguish Names with a > unique Instance-ID. For any use-cases which require different uses for > Distinguish Names within an Instance-ID MUST define their own Instance-ID and > structure syntax for the name registered to the Mapping System. See the > encoding procedures in [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for an example. Also, please consider double checking that we are consistent with names (capitalizations, dashes, etc) through the document. I think the official spellings are “EID-Prefix” and “Distinguished Name”, it might be worth to scan the document and update where needed. Thanks! Alberto From: Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:22 PM To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <na...@cisco.com> Cc: lisp@ietf.org <lisp@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Distinguished Name comments Thanks for the comments Roberto. See comments inline. > First my apologies, this is long overdue. I’m trying to catch up with my > shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding and I have some > comments/suggestions on the current draft. I have submitted draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-03 to reflect your comments with a diff file attached. > > • Sec 3: You describe that when a DN is used as an EID, an exact match > > is performed (which is correct). However, this is described in the format > > section of the document, shouldn’t this be discussed somewhere else (maybe > > on its own section)? I know this is a very short document, but having that > > behavior described in the format section seems odd to me. No strong opinion > > though. I have added a new section. > • Sec 4: You say it in the title of the section already, but it might be > interesting that on the body of the section you mention that the listed > use-cases are examples and more importantly that we explicitly say that that > other use-cases not listed are possible as well. Typo: s/ascii/ASCII Made the change. > • Sec. 5: I think that this section should talk about unique Instance-IDs > (IIDs), not VPNs, so that the text is more general while preserving the > considerations about name collisions. We can point to the VPN draft to > mention one example of how a particular use-case is registering DNs in unique > IIDs, see also the next point on this. Made the change. > • Sec. 8: If we talk about IIDs in Section 5, there is no need to keep the > VPN draft as a Normative Reference and could be moved to Informative, easing > the RFC process. Fixed. Thanks again, Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
