> 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
Thanks for your comments Kiran. I will submit -08 on Saturday. See my responses inline to your comments. > 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 > ---- Done. > > 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. > ---- There is no emphasis on them. They are independent designs and the authors of all the documents, including this one agreed to have a consistent format for ease of implementations. > > 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. > ---- I updated the URL. Good catch. > 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? > ---- I used "Radius" when referring to Geo-Prefixes and referencing it in the packet format. I use it lower case to refer to the general term "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 > > ---- Done. > 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. > ---- The opening paragraph states the deprecation but I'll make it more clear and not the new name for the new LCAF type. > 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. > > ---- Its there to allow expansion of the bit fields that precede it. I added text to reflect that. > 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. > ---- Changed. Thanks again, Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
