> Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Not Ready > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Date: 01-06-2024 > Version reviewed:draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06
Thanks for your comments. I have posted -07. See my responses to your comments below. > Suggestions/Issues: > > It would be nice to add information about: > > 1- The document mentions compatibility with OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. It is > suggested to provide examples of how LISP with geo-coordinates interoperates > with these protocols. LISP does not interoperate directly with these protocols. The text indicates the geo-coordinate packet format is the same to adhere to a more holistic consistency. > 2- The draft doesn't mention which LISP messages the geo-coordinates encoding > should be used in. It is suggested to add explicitly in which LISP messages > (such as Map-Register?) the geo-coordinates encoding should be used, to > provide > clearer guidance for implementers and newcomers. They are the messages that contain EID-records and RLOC-records. I put in a reference to rfc9301. > 3- How the geo-coordinates encoding will interoperate with existing LISP > deployments, including any backward compatibility issues. Added a new section. > 4- How to handle errors such as invalid geo-coordinate data or missing fields. Fixed in the section 5. > 5- The performance impact of including geo-coordinates in LISP messages, such > as increased message size and processing overhead. Did not add this. There is no impact. > 6- Are the geo-coordinates incorporated in control plane operations? Yes. RFC9301 and RFC8060 references make this clear. > 7- Perhaps to include some Manageability Considerations? For what? All the management of this new type or any type is in RFC9301. > 8- How geo-coordinates can aid in selecting alternate paths and improving > network resilience. how geo-coordinates could help manage dynamic and mobile > topologies. We have already provided the use-cases we intend to support. There is no plans to add new features. > 9- In the security considerations, what about add description on attacks > related to geo-coordinates such as location spoofing? We had added that from previous reviews. Tell us exactly what you are looking for. > Nits: > > 10 - Abstract: "Geo-Coordinates can used in..." -> "Geo-Coordinates can be > used > in ..." 11 - Introduction: "...introduces two..." -> "...introduce two..." 12 > - > Section 4.2: "... in any on the inner ..." -> "... in any of the inner ..." 13 > - Sometimes "Geo-Coordinates" is used and sometimes "geo-coordinates". > Suggestion to use one format. 14 - Suggestion to expand on First use the > acronyms: LISP, LCAF, ETR and RTR. 15 - Add a caption for the LCAF encoding > figure and an introductory sentence to introduce the figure. 16- In the LCAF > encoding figure, two AFI fields are depicted. Add a description for each one. > For example, "The AFI field is set to 16387 to indicate that the address is > using the LCAF format." And for the other AFI, "The AFI field indicates the > Address Family Identifier for the following address...?" Also, add an > explanation for the Address field. Made all these changes. It was alraedy commented to not redefine the terms so hence not expanded. > Thanks for this document, Thanks again for the review, Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
