Dear author(s), chairs
I have reviewed the document and do not find significant concerns. It is
concise and well written; Please find my comments below, hopefully they will
help improve the document.
Comments are separated by "----". I have provided section and context before
the COMMENT (sorry, about not including the line numbers).
Thanks,
Kiran
Abstract
This document describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the LISP
Architecture and Protocols. The functionality proposes a new LCAF
encoding for such Geo-Coordinates, which is compatible with the GPS
encodings used by other routing protocols.
COMMENT
Please expand LCAF, GPS or rephrase to avoid too many acronyms in the abstract
----
1. Introduction
This document proposes a new LCAF encoding for Geo-Coordinates, which
is compatible with the one used in other routing protocols, namely
OSPF [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS
[I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], and BGP
[I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols.
COMMENT:
These documents have not progressed; I am wondering if it is possible to lower
the emphasis on them
and rationalize other reasons to introduce new type. I think location with
radius is one.
----
3. Definition of Terms
Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a
point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude.
COMMENT:
[GEO] document is not accessible, as a result, I could not verify definition of
Geo-Point. from other sources, I read about Point is a location represented by
Geo-Coordinates. I think this could be made clearer. Note: [GEO] is a normative
reference so it is important to point to valid information.
----
4.2. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records
A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius.
COMMENT:
on the consistent usage and definition of Geo-Point.
Geo-Coordinate point or Geo-Point with a radius. Should it be "Radius" or
"radius?
----
create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of
predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming
COMMENT:
please add reference to predictive RLOCs I.d
----
5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings
This document has no provision to validate the Geo-Location values.
COMMENT:
It was not clear until now that the new LCAF type is called Geo-Location.
Personally, I would have prefered Geo-Coordinate-v2, but if authors choose to
use Geo-Location, please mention in Introduction that type
'Geo-Coordinate' is deprecated, new type called 'Geo-Location' is introduced.
----
Reserved: These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to 0 when
sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving
protocol packets.
COMMENT:
there is no justification why reserved field is provided. It should be
explained.
----
8. Privacy Considerations
* Obfuscating a geo-point by using geo-prefixes instead uses data
minimization techniques.
COMMENTS: s/geo-point/Geo-Point; s/geo-prefixes/Geo-Prefixes
It also felt that this item is underspecified, perhaps more details or
preferably an existing reference will help.
----
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
