Hi Ines, Did you get the opportunity to check the latest revision of the lisp-geo document? Do you consider your concerns addressed?
Thanks Ciao L. > On 7 Jun 2024, at 01:53, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Ines Robles >> Review result: Not Ready >> >> Reviewer: Ines Robles >> Date: 01-06-2024 >> Version reviewed:draft-ietf-lisp-geo-06 > > Thanks for your comments. I have posted -07. See my responses to your > comments below. > >> Suggestions/Issues: >> >> It would be nice to add information about: >> >> 1- The document mentions compatibility with OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. It is >> suggested to provide examples of how LISP with geo-coordinates interoperates >> with these protocols. > > LISP does not interoperate directly with these protocols. The text indicates > the geo-coordinate packet format is the same to adhere to a more holistic > consistency. > >> 2- The draft doesn't mention which LISP messages the geo-coordinates encoding >> should be used in. It is suggested to add explicitly in which LISP messages >> (such as Map-Register?) the geo-coordinates encoding should be used, to >> provide >> clearer guidance for implementers and newcomers. > > They are the messages that contain EID-records and RLOC-records. I put in a > reference to rfc9301. > >> 3- How the geo-coordinates encoding will interoperate with existing LISP >> deployments, including any backward compatibility issues. > > Added a new section. > >> 4- How to handle errors such as invalid geo-coordinate data or missing >> fields. > > Fixed in the section 5. > >> 5- The performance impact of including geo-coordinates in LISP messages, such >> as increased message size and processing overhead. > > Did not add this. There is no impact. > >> 6- Are the geo-coordinates incorporated in control plane operations? > > Yes. RFC9301 and RFC8060 references make this clear. > >> 7- Perhaps to include some Manageability Considerations? > > For what? All the management of this new type or any type is in RFC9301. > >> 8- How geo-coordinates can aid in selecting alternate paths and improving >> network resilience. how geo-coordinates could help manage dynamic and mobile >> topologies. > > We have already provided the use-cases we intend to support. There is no > plans to add new features. > >> 9- In the security considerations, what about add description on attacks >> related to geo-coordinates such as location spoofing? > > We had added that from previous reviews. Tell us exactly what you are looking > for. > >> Nits: >> >> 10 - Abstract: "Geo-Coordinates can used in..." -> "Geo-Coordinates can be >> used >> in ..." 11 - Introduction: "...introduces two..." -> "...introduce two..." >> 12 - >> Section 4.2: "... in any on the inner ..." -> "... in any of the inner ..." >> 13 >> - Sometimes "Geo-Coordinates" is used and sometimes "geo-coordinates". >> Suggestion to use one format. 14 - Suggestion to expand on First use the >> acronyms: LISP, LCAF, ETR and RTR. 15 - Add a caption for the LCAF encoding >> figure and an introductory sentence to introduce the figure. 16- In the LCAF >> encoding figure, two AFI fields are depicted. Add a description for each one. >> For example, "The AFI field is set to 16387 to indicate that the address is >> using the LCAF format." And for the other AFI, "The AFI field indicates the >> Address Family Identifier for the following address...?" Also, add an >> explanation for the Address field. > > Made all these changes. It was alraedy commented to not redefine the terms so > hence not expanded. > >> Thanks for this document, > > Thanks again for the review, > Dino > > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
