I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2015-10-14
IETF LC End Date: 2015-10-19
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready.
Major Concerns:
Section 3 says: "[KIF13] and [CDLC] explore different EDI prefix space
sizes, and still show results that are consistent and equivalent to the
above assumptions." It seems like it would be valuable to include a
sentence or two about the way that EDI space is obtained.
Minor Concerns:
I found the Introduction and LISP in a nutshell sections a bit too
much like marketing material. I think the document would be better
if the tone was more like an engineering analysis.
Perhaps this paragraph can be moved to the top:
An introduction to LISP can be found in [RFC7215]. The LISP
specifications are given in [RFC6830], [RFC6833],
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt], [RFC6836], [RFC6832], [RFC6834].
Section 5 has very little content on "business models". There is some,
but not much. It seems odd that it appears in the section heading.
Other Comments:
Please spell out "DPI" and "DFZ" on first use.
Section 4 says: "Without LISP, operators are forced to centralize
service anchors in custom built boxes." This seems a bit too strong.
Perhaps: "Without LISP, operators centralize service anchors."
Section 4.1: s/(non-LISP)routing/(non-LISP) routing/