Subject: [lisp] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:32:40 -0700

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13: 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 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/

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

Thanks for addressing my discuss and comments.

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.

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".