Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lisp-geo-11
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: 30 April 2025
IETF LC End Date: 2025-05-07
Intended Status: Experimental 

Summary:
I have some minor concerns for the author to consider before publication.

Comments:
Overall this draft is clear and well-written.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate
packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID
location.  
This sentence doesn't parse well. I think there is an extra "to".


So an ITR
could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to
create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming.
Please expand "ITR".


The new Geo-Location format is:
Please consider change this to "The Geo-Coordinates LCAF format is:", or simply remove the "new".


R-bit:  If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is used
and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix.  If the R-bit is clear, it
indicates the "Radius" field is set to 0 and and the encoding is a
Geo-Point.
Question: Is this R-bit necessary? When the "Radius" is set to non-zero, it means the encoding is Geo-Prefix, and when the "Radius" is set to 0, the encoding is a Geo-Point.


Thanks,
Yingzhen