Subject: [lisp] last call for draft-ietf-lisp-lig-02

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 17:08:13 -0700

All,

The authors of draft-ietf-lisp-lig-02 have requested a work group last call.

Here starts the last call for this document, Joel and I will end the last
call on Monday the 16th May, 2011.

Please review the draft and provide any last comments.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 18:16:14 -0400

Here are my review comments:

a) On p.7 last paragraph:
   "The Map-Request is then returned to one of the ETRs for the lig
   initiating site."
 but that is NOT what is specified in the [MS] draft where the
 Map-Resolver creates a Map-Reply if the EID-prefix is local.

The same statement is made in Sec 6. paragraph 2 - and again that
doesn't map to what is specified in the [MS] draft.

b) In Sec 7, it says that:
  "Negative Map-Replies could be sent in the following cases, the lig
   request was initiated for a non-EID address or the Map-Request
   initiated by lig request is being rejected due to rate-limiting on
   the replier."

There are minimal hints in [LISP] that a Negative Map-Reply might be
sent due to rate-limiting. For the rate-limiting case, do you mean
that a drop action would be specified?  Having this defined somewhere
would be very helpful!

Looking forward to your responses,
Alia

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Terry Manderson
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 22:43:49 -0700

So all the comments below will not need to have changes to the LIG  
spec. The text that is written is correct and multiple lig  
implementations have been working for a couple of years. But we will  
make the references below more clear in the map-server spec.

Thanks,
Dino

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:02:16 -0400

I agree that these are ambiguities that can be resolved in the lig
draft or the MS draft.
Clarifying in the MS draft is fine for me.

Alia

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]> wrote:
> So all the comments below will not need to have changes to the LIG spec. The
> text that is written is correct and multiple lig implementations have been
> working for a couple of years. But we will make the references below more
> clear in the map-server spec.
>
> Thanks,
> Dino
>