Subject: [lisp] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:14:07 -0800

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-12: Discuss

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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Adrian's discuss.  In a similar vein:

In Sec 3.2: Please either remove the claim of "Such LISP capable
routers, in most cases, only require a software upgrade." or explain
how you can justify the need to add and remove new encapsulations and
handle the various flag triggers and caching at line rate.  There is
no need for such marketing in this document.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Sec 1, second paragraph:
   "LISP creates two separate namespaces, EIDs (End-host IDentifiers)
and
   RLOCs (Routing LOCators), both are typically syntactically identical
   to the current IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
   
   What does "typically" mean?  As far as I'm aware, they are
   syntactically identical.  This is reiterated in Sec 3.2; are you just
   trying to preserve the point of architectural freedom?  I've found
the
   third instance of insisting that the EID or RLOC now is only
"typically" 
   an IPv4 or IPv6 address. Please lose "typically".  Minorly, the ,
   before both should be a ;.

2) top paragraph of p.4:
  "The initial motivation in the LISP effort is to be found in the
   routing scalability problem [RFC4984], where, if LISP is completely
   deployed, the Internet core is populated with RLOCs while Traffic
   Engineering mechanisms are pushed to the Mapping System."

   Instead of "LISP is completely deployed" to "LISP were to be
   completely deployed" - making it subjunctive.  

3) Last paragraph in Sec 1:
   "This document describes the LISP architecture, its main
   operational mechanisms as its design rationale."

   I think you mean 

   "This document describes the LISP architecture and its main
   operational mechanisms as well as its design rationale."

4) In Sec 3.1, second paragraph:
   "Locator/Identifier split: By decoupling the overloaded semantics
      of the current IP addresses the Internet core can be assigned
      identity meaningful addresses and hence, can use aggregation to
      scale."
   I assume that you mean "topologically meaningful addresses" instead
   of "identity meaningful addresses".

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:32:41 +0100

Hi Alia 

thanks for the review. 

I have just one comment right in the middle of your review.

> On 05 Mar 2015, at 16:14, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think that the changes the authors already proposed to Adrian fix the above Discuss and comments.
Can you check if I am correct?

From this point down is just typos/grammar, so authors will easily fix your helpful comments

thanks again

ciao

L.

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:32:41 +0100

Hi Alia 

thanks for the review. 

thanks again

ciao

L.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:13:10 -0500

Hi Luigi,

Yes, Adrian also picked up on the "typically" for EID and RLOC and the
proposed response fixes that as well as the BGP issues.

I don't recall seeing the "oh, routers can just do with with a software
upgrade" claim fixed.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:13:10 -0500

Hi Luigi,

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:11:42 +0100

Hi Alia,

> On 05 Mar 2015, at 23:13, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Luigi,
> 
> Yes, Adrian also picked up on the "typically" for EID and RLOC and the proposed response fixes that as well as the BGP issues.
> 
> I don't recall seeing the "oh, routers can just do with with a software upgrade" claim fixed.

because it is lost in a lot of other fixes ;-)

The authors propose to change the wording in the following way:

"Adding LISP capabilities to routers does not mandate hardware changes and can be done via a software upgrade."

The point authors are trying to make is not about how to install LISP in your boxes,  is more about the fact that the protocol 
does not need new hardware. Obviously you there can be hardware implementations, but as you rightfully point out, this is 
not the place to mention them. So, the above sentence looks appropriate, unless we want to simplify even more and just state:

"Adding LISP capabilities to routers does not mandate hardware changes."
  
What do you think?

ciao

Luigi

> 
> Regards,
> Alia
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Luigi Iannone <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> Hi Alia
> 
> thanks for the review.
> 
> > On 05 Mar 2015, at 16:14, Alia Atlas <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> >
> > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/ <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/>
> >
> >
> >

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:11:42 +0100

Hi Alia,

  
What do you think?

ciao

Luigi

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:25:59 -0500

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The point authors are trying to make is not about how to install LISP in
> your boxes,  is more about the fact that the protocol
> does not need new hardware. Obviously you there can be hardware
> implementations, but as you rightfully point out, this is
> not the place to mention them. So, the above sentence looks appropriate,
> unless we want to simplify even more and just state:
>

Just take out the whole sentence.  It adds nothing except inaccuracy and
marketing.

Alia

>> > Please refer to
>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:25:59 -0500

Alia

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:54:18 +0100

> On 06 Mar 2015, at 15:25, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> Hi Alia,
> 
>> On 05 Mar 2015, at 23:13, Alia Atlas <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Luigi,
>> 
> Just take out the whole sentence.  It adds nothing except inaccuracy and marketing.

I can live with that. 

If the authors agree, than let’s delete the sentence.

ciao

Luigi

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:54:18 +0100

I can live with that. 

ciao

Luigi