Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:32:58 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>

    > I will send comments very soon.

Comments will be most useful (and I look forward to them - assuming
of course that that the WG decides to take these two up):.

One minor thing to note; as I indicated when I first announced them:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg03786.html

These are rough drafts (and the second one is only partially complete), so as
I indicated in that message:

  we're not (yet) at the 'detailed editorial comments' stage - although if
  anyone reads it, and has high-level comments (e.g. 'you ought to talk about
  topic X', or 'it would be better if you talked about P before you get to
  Q'), I would be most grateful for, and interested in, hearing things like
  that.

I tend to fiddle with text details extensively, so at the detail level there
will have been lots of changes before the next draft version. After that,
then we'll be ready for the detailed editorial comments! :-)

	Noel

---

From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:47:17 +0300

Hello Noel and others

These drafts were very interesting readings.  

I have some comments that you may consider:

draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01

Section economics

you mention here "maximizing" the cost-benefit ratio. I believe we
should minimize or optimize it.

Section 4. Initial applications

These may go a bit too far and some of the text maybe better positioned
in the architecture draft rather than in the intro document. This is
because that the base documents as such do not suffice for some of the
applications you describe here: Traffic engineering and mobility and
maybe IP version reciprocal traversal but needs extension on top of the
base documents. And these extensions are not yet WG draft even. 

Should we say something where in the network the LISP  nodes/ devices
are located (e.g. CPE, CE/PE etc)?

Maybe whole section 7 Design approach is better at home in the
architecture document.

Note that you use terms node and device interchangeable (editorial).

draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01

I was wondering if draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt is worth mentioning
in the relationship of sections 5.2 and 5.3?

One editorial wording nit: "base station" is not a mobile ip term, and
in cellular networks it has a certain meaning  (@ radio level) that
doesn't match what is meant here either. Instead mobile IP talks about
"home agents" that know the original location.  

Thank you for the documents.

best regards
Hannu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 4:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01
anddraft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01

These are rough drafts (and the second one is only partially complete),
so as
I indicated in that message:

  we're not (yet) at the 'detailed editorial comments' stage - although
if
  anyone reads it, and has high-level comments (e.g. 'you ought to talk
about
  topic X', or 'it would be better if you talked about P before you get
to
  Q'), I would be most grateful for, and interested in, hearing things
like
  that.

I tend to fiddle with text details extensively, so at the detail level
there
will have been lots of changes before the next draft version. After
that,
then we'll be ready for the detailed editorial comments! :-)

	Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: "Wiley, Glen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:16:12 +0000

The draft looks acceptable to me.  I have a few high level comments and
I'll throw in a few more detailed ones for convenience:

There needs to be a discussion of resilience to DDOS, particularly because
LISP is based on UDP it may create opportunities for reflector and
amplification attacks similar to what we see on large scale DNS resolver
footprints.  Were you planning on including this in the "Robustness"
discussion?  I think it warrants a separate section if you are amenable to
that idea.  I'd be happy to contribute some narrative to that point as
well.

A few more detailed nits:

Section 2: Is DFZ size still a main design driver or is it really more of
a question of finer grained routing with a side benefit of DFZ size
reductions?

Section 3.2: "one at each end" isn't really the case for LISP, "one near
each end" I think is a little closer to what you mean, especially since
you mention LISP being invisible on both ends.

Section 5: Does list really have three key name spaces (thinking DDT
nodes) rather than two?

Section 11.2.1: Might want to revise language around the DNS registry
example.  TLDs have different registries (although root of course is
unique).  In DNS you can't take your domain name to a different registry,
you can however take it to a different registrar.

--
Glen Wiley
Systems Architect
Verisign Inc.