Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-10 Please find https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ documenting the handling of ballots. # Many thanks to Acee Lindem and Christian Hopps for the RTGDIR reviews and Alberto Rodriguez-Natal for the shepherd write-up # please take these NON BLOCKING comments as suggestions to help improve the content if you feel appropriate #GENERIC COMMENTS #================ ## Well written draft, short and to the point #DETAILED COMMENTS #================= ##classified as [minor] and [major] 10 Abstract 11 12 This draft defines how to use the AFI=17 Distinguished Names in LISP. [minor] This abstract is rather brief and could use some more meat to the bone to sumamrize the content of the document. What about the following proposed textblob: " This document specifies an encoding format for names in LISP. The proposed encoding supports various naming schemes, including DNS names, distinguished names, and user-defined names, facilitating the integration of LISP with diverse applications and services. The encoding ensures efficient and scalable name resolution within the LISP mapping system. Additionally, the document addresses interoperability considerations and provides guidelines for implementation. This work aims to enhance the flexibility and applicability of LISP in modern network environments. " 116 17. This draft defines a termination character, an 8-bit value of 0 117 to be used as a string terminator so the length can be determined. [minor] RFC0020 seems to name the 0000 000 ascii characted 'NUL'. WOuld that make sense to mention or name the character like that in this document? 139 0 1 2 3 140 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 141 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 142 | AFI = 17 | ASCII String ... | 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 144 | ... ASCII String | 0 | 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [minor] Clarification. Is the '0' termination character assumed to be at a 32bit boundary? or can it be somewhere else? Maybe worthwhile to explicit document the expectation. RFC states that an ASCII character is represented using 7 bits. However, in practice, it is often stored in an 8-bit byte, with the extra bit typically set to zero. 218 9. Sample LISP Distinguished Name (DN) Deployment Experience 220 Practical implementations of the LISP Distinguished Name 221 specification have been running in production networks for some time. 222 The following sections provide some examples of its usage and lessons 223 gathered out of this experience. [minor] I believe that this complete section is informational and belongs more in an appendix to make it explicit that its not part of the formal procedure outlined in this document and are examples. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
