Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-12

[Ballot comment]
(Revised ballot)

Thanks to the authors and IANA for updating the formal name of "https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type" to be "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types."

** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type = 255”).  It should read TBD in both places.  Suggesting 255, if that is the desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads).

[Ballot comment]
** Éric’s ballot already called out that Figure 1 doesn’t match the text in Section 3 (i.e., Figure 1 says “Type = TBD” but the Section 3 text says “Type = 255”).  It should read TBD in both places.  Suggesting 255, if that is the desired value, only makes sense in Section 6 (as it currently reads).

** Section 6. 

Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
  value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP
  Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
  [RFC8060]) as follows:

The text here calls the registry the “LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types”.  That doesn’t appear to be the official name. Examining https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type it appears to be “LISP LCAF Type.”

draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  This document is targeting "Experimental" status.
It is the proper type of RFC since it extents the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC 8060], which is "Experiment as well.



(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document propose an extension to the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC 8060]. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
  LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP
  deployments. A new LCAF type is allocated (Type 255). Such LCAF type contains at the beginning of the LCAF structure an IEEE Organizationally
  Unique Identifier (OUI), which on the one hand allow to identify the organization, while on the other hand defines the rest of the LCAF structure. IANA is requested to assign the value 255 of the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry to this document.

Working Group Summary:

  The document was first published in 2017, and was quickly adopted and past WG Last Call in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document. Consensus was checked during face to face meeting at IETF 101 and confirmed on the mailinglist. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -02. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. Hence, a few keep alive revision have been submitted and the last -09 revision has been submitted to address a couple of comments that I had as a shepherd.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

  Nothing to point out. The document is really short and straightforward.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable.
  I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
  I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11.




(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  No broader review is required for this document.



(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.



(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this document.



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.04

/tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No formal review is required.



(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, both of which are in the RFC Editor queue.



(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  There are no downward normative references.



(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document will update RFC 8060, specifying how to deal with unknown LCAF types.



(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
  value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP
  Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
  [RFC8060]).
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
    | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name |          Reference          |
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
    |  TBD  |  Vendor Specific  |                Section 3    |
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+



(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No expert review is for future allocations is required.



(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is short and easy to read.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), including one that should have been a blocking DISCUSS but the fix is so easy that I am balloting NO OBJECTION.

Special thanks to Luigi Iannone for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus and the experimental status.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## Abstract & section 1

The word "internal" is rather ambiguous.

## Section 1

I lack the context of course, but isn't "particular LISP deployments" more for network operators and less for vendors (like in the doc title) ? I.e, using "Organisation-specific LCAF" seems more appropriate.

## Section 3

Figure 1 states "Type = TBD" but the text specifies "The "Type" field MUST be set to the value 255". Using a text similar to section 6 would be an easy fix. BTW, I was about to raise a blocking DISCUSS on this one.

Would this LCAF be used by organisations with any IEEE OUI ? I.e., should there be a non-recommended option to use a specific OUI in such a case ?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the LISP LCAF Type registry on the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Value: 255
LISP LCAF Type Name: Vendor Specific
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3 ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Please note that specific values cannot be reserved. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-04-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Luigi Iannone , aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf@ietf.org, ggx@gigix.net, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG
(lisp) to consider the following document: - 'Vendor Specific LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-04-12. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF),
  the Vendor Specific LCAF.  This LCAF enables organizations to have
  internal encodings for LCAF addresses.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  This document is targeting "Experimental" status.
It is the proper type of RFC since it extents the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC 8060], which is "Experiment as well.



(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document propose an extension to the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC 8060]. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
  LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP
  deployments. A new LCAF type is allocated (Type 255). Such LCAF type contains at the beginning of the LCAF structure an IEEE Organizationally
  Unique Identifier (OUI), which on the one hand allow to identify the organization, while on the other hand defines the rest of the LCAF structure. IANA is requested to assign the value 255 of the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry to this document.

Working Group Summary:

  The document was first published in 2017, and was quickly adopted and past WG Last Call in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document. Consensus was checked during face to face meeting at IETF 101 and confirmed on the mailinglist. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -02. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. Hence, a few keep alive revision have been submitted and the last -09 revision has been submitted to address a couple of comments that I had as a shepherd.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

  Nothing to point out. The document is really short and straightforward.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable.
  I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
  I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11.




(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  No broader review is required for this document.



(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.



(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this document.



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.04

/tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No formal review is required.



(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, both of which are in the RFC Editor queue.



(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  There are no downward normative references.



(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document.



(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  The document asks IANA to update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment:
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
    | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name |          Reference          |
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
    |  255  |  Vendor Specific  |                Section 3    |
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+



(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No expert review is for future allocations is required.



(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.

draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  This document is targeting "Experimental" status.
It is the proper type of RFC since it extents the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC 8060], which is "Experiment as well.



(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document propose an extension to the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC 8060]. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
  LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP
  deployments. A new LCAF type is allocated (Type 255). Such LCAF type contains at the beginning of the LCAF structure an IEEE Organizationally
  Unique Identifier (OUI), which on the one hand allow to identify the organization, while on the other hand defines the rest of the LCAF structure. IANA is requested to assign the value 255 of the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry to this document.

Working Group Summary:

  The document was first published in 2017, and was quickly adopted and past WG Last Call in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document. Consensus was checked during face to face meeting at IETF 101 and confirmed on the mailinglist. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -02. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. Hence, a few keep alive revision have been submitted and the last -09 revision has been submitted to address a couple of comments that I had as a shepherd.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

  Nothing to point out. The document is really short and straightforward.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable.
  I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
  I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11.




(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  No broader review is required for this document.



(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  I have no specific concerns or issues to point out.



(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this document.



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits 2.16.04

/tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No formal review is required.



(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, both of which are in the RFC Editor queue.



(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  There are no downward normative references.



(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document.



(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  The document asks IANA to update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment:
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
    | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name |          Reference          |
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+
    |  255  |  Vendor Specific  |                Section 3    |
    +---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+



(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No expert review is for future allocations is required.



(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.