Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-09-06
Requested 2018-08-23
Authors Fabio Maino, Jennifer Lemon, Puneet Agarwal, Darrel Lewis, Michael Smith
Draft last updated 2018-08-24
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Christopher Wood (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -06 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lisp-gpe-05-genart-lc-bryant-2018-08-24
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-08-24


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2018-08-24
IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


This is a well written draft, and I assume that everyone in the WG is happy that the reduction in size of the Nonce/Map-Version field will not be a problem in operational networks.

However, I do have a question of why this is being published now on the Standards Track with a normative reference to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis. draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis is only a few weeks old. It will take its time to get through the IETF process and of course technically may change. If  draft-ietf-lisp-gpe is approved by the IESG  it will simply sit on the RFC Editor's queue until draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis gets through the system, and even then if there is a change to draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis, then draft-ietf-lisp-gpe may need to be pulled all the way back to the WG depending on the nature of the change.

Maybe the plan is that ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis will only take a short while to finish because I see that other bis drafts will also stall on it. If not I would have thought that a better approach would be to make this experimental and point to RFC6834. Then, when RFC6834bis is published to make this draft a PS pointing to it.

Whatever the conclusion this matter will need to be clearly written up in the Shepherd's report.

Major issues: No technical issues, but see summary.

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: None