Subject: [lisp] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:13:59 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20: 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/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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/

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

I unfortunately ran out of time to do more than a cursory review of the LISP
documents on this week's telechat. My apologies. I find the SEC ADs' DISCUSS
positions concerning, though, and support the resolution of their security
concerns.

Section 15 of RFC 6830 lists a number of open issues and areas for future work.
It seems like at least some of these are not addressed in this round of
document updates. I would have expected some more explicit discussion of how
the bis document addresses those areas, or why it does not need to.

I'm curious why there are several authors listed with an affiliation (Cisco)
who no longer have that affiliation AFAIK.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:51:43 -0700

> who no longer have that affiliation AFAIK.

The authors decided to do this since much of the foundational work was done while the authors were at cisco. We thought the right thing to do was to give cisco credit.

Dino