Subject: [lisp] Comments on draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-00

From: Alberto Rodríguez Natal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:30:16 +0100

Hi all,

I like the document, I think it is a solid work. Just a few comments,
mostly regarding format and typos.

Content comments

- About the future uses of LISP, I think that besides referring to the
[Future] document, maybe it is worth to point out a few possible examples
of these future uses. Just to illustrate the reader and to allow him/her to
see the possibilities of LISP.

- In section 11.3, I do agree that some brief comments about SMR and
Proxy-Map-Reply should be included.

Format/style comments

- I agree with the idea, mentioned in previous reviews, that acronyms
(specially LISP-related ones) should be followed by what they stand for the
first time they appear. Slightly related to this, TTL acronym is used in 8
but defined in 9.2.3.

- I think that sections at the beginning of the document, that introduce
topics that will be discussed in detail later, should point to the sections
where these topics are discussed. This is already done in some sections
(section 3.3 points to section 9.5 and section 4.3 links to 5.2), but not
in all. Some examples where this can be done: section 3.4 can point to
10.1, section 4.4 to 11.3 and 5.2.3 to 9.1

- I believe that LISP-related terms shouldn't be used prior to introduce
them. As an example, Map-Request and Map-Reply concepts are used in 5.1,
but they are not introduced until 5.2.2

Typos (I will try to omit those that have already appeared in other reviews
in the mailing list)

- Sec. 2.2: "whereever" possible
- Sec. 4: It is very "imporant" to note
- Sec. 4.2: and the "existince" of a binding layer
- Sec. 4.3: distributed "computationa"
- Sec 8.2: In most "exising" hardware
- Sec. 10.2.1: precisely "to" to minimize the number
- Sec. 11.4: LISP's mapping capability "isa" used
- Sec 12.4: are _not_ "synonmous"

Regards,
Alberto