Hi Dino, Agree with all responses - see inline.
> On Jul 11, 2024, at 1:58 PM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Acee for your useful comments. I created > draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-09 and it is on the queue for when submission > window opens up. > >> On Jul 9, 2024, at 12:32 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Major Issues: None >> >> Minor Issues: >> >> I have the following minor comments. >> >> 1. In section 3, could you more precisely define the places where >> the new encoding is used? I guess in any LISP message where an >> EID or RLOC is specified? > > It is listed in section 3 where we say all messages that contain EID-records > and RLOC-records can use the name-encoding AFI. This exposes my only high-level knowledge of the protocol itself. Maybe add a reference to [RFC9301] here as well. > >> 2. In section 5, the final sentence fragment didn't parse and it >> wasn't obvious to me how to edit it - "As well as identifying >> the router name...". > > Fixed. Thanks. > >> 3. In section 9.2, The description of the onboarding process includes >> very specific details that aren't fully explained. Would it be >> possible to describe the use case at a higher level? > > This is some text from the cisco guys. I don't know how to change that. They > have the intellectual property on it. That’s fine with me then. It was just unclear to me how a DN would provide stability to the reliable transport session - would this allow the session to be recovered using a different UDP for? > >> 4. Remove change log prior to publication. > > Ack. > >> Nits: >> >> I've attached some editorial suggestions. > > Applied all your suggestions, modulo RTRs are "Re-encapsualting Tunnel > Routers" but they are reliable too LOL. I see RTR is defined in RFC 9300 but not in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list Thanks, Acee > > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
