[Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 12 August 2016 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE2B12D987; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pYdUuBg9jDOS; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB8512D98D; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id p64so6339151pfb.1; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; bh=L+UBpaAeDQyXAEQMU0P4uEtFO1/QbKCKwZ06q1uoqsU=; b=t+ofHALzQHgb5yOUjV/fI5SBk/m41yBbYudlW5i5ukZFqftG6ihMl5A9EWvotPPxv3 8iT6T3egs5qtEpEqr7aB/IxQQ3LES7/ZOtOrtOHV0JdIt/Udzs+bfVLrbV5oVwdMRmY8 +peDm1RERIbOzsVqHIDO241WeMucwT+7H/dDJ/aUvokl8kzQu8JUiBefYAqlsfwamMto J/uPShQcZTgCSegMndXb+IQht9cnwDi/3TsH0gPO6cQjHUXc4wDtd6AOc6t6CXQNqWYA i9U0mPMPv49KFMLDAUaC0LaGf10p6fQIWxEhkau+r1Exo6KTCx8RDglyLRECkJFD6MPe Iz4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=L+UBpaAeDQyXAEQMU0P4uEtFO1/QbKCKwZ06q1uoqsU=; b=R+zEhj0bnGG/WYIiYVHMEy+fWZE4EXiU4s9hokvCcPCnsf2ypkA4NlwKyj8DdBgm2U fWI+xMZAmqToBsIgFg8o+btbpkaQCaDMLS3vUY/sePYGzLryooJ/ZsXZjz2dEKgvUYbe XA58Unxy2In9R19hZrrNUsAEtV5tx3+C7nnb6hEu74h9MB16jnG6vpbR3gEtnn2Npu+P 22C50E80JVMTzqWm7HPKKbIp4/n7EDnxFE/ZadLRb0o/2C3x2lDvzXz5jWYYJCQ6e1ok 8iL6Bz6S5e2tTOXF+IJMvz/YPMgZT8ezqMYrE7aCJZ2l7ccImT2AQksCFVbma8TWzoX9 eIgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouslW23oguOdRxKSxsKkLmPdaEwXjz4zmhq0L+qSYMbIf8f3T/XI934RX+vxR29T9Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g11mr24683891pfd.140.1470984666454; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4200:e520:4117:795d:5ca3:997f? ([2601:647:4200:e520:4117:795d:5ca3:997f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f84sm9904520pfd.87.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE7359A5-ACD3-4CD1-B1B0-E01579203FFE@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 23:51:04 -0700
To: "gen-art@ietf.org (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap.all@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/6DKxogiBy_1896AZUWXJYbGyv4Y>
Subject: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:51:09 -0000

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-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 8/11/2016
IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-12
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:  Ready with minor nits.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues: Read on..

 o My “complaint” of this document is basically on the following.. these are writing
   style things so feel free to neglect:
   - It repeats.. the same statements multiple times.
   - When reading the document I get the feeling it is actually two documents. The
     technical specification (which is very short) and the general deployment
     considerations document. I would have split it to two but that is just me.

The other nits.

 o There are bunch of acronyms that are not expanded either never or on their first use. 
   Some examples include UDP, DSCP, DS, PMTU, MPLS, VNP, .. Pay attention to these.
 o In the Introduction give a reference to EtherType e.g., the repository where they
   are maintained or by whom they are maintained.
 o On line 129 is says: 
	   This document specifies GRE-in-UDP tunnel requirements for two
   Based on the earlier text I would suggest saying “..document also specifies..”
 o On line 143 I would also (following the previous style in the paragraph) capitalize
   “wide area networks” as well.
 o In multiple places (lines 236, 887) the reference is after the full stop. Place full
   stop after the reference.
 o The document uses both tunnel ingress/egress and encapsulator/decapsulator. Is there a
   specific reason to have this differentiation? If not use common terminology throughout
   the document.
 o On line 654 is says:
 	        MUST comply with requirement 1 and 8-10 in Section 5 of
   How is this “MUST” enforced?
 o In Section 7.1 I find it a bit odd discussing NATs in the specific context of IPv6. If
   you have a specific IPv6 NAT scenario in mind either spell it out or give a reference
   to a specification that describes the technology/use case.
 o In Section 8 and lines 784-785 has a “MUST NOT” for traffic that is not known to be
   congestion-controlled.. I would be interested in knowing how to enforce this “MUST”
   specifically in the Internet case.
 o Line 909 typo “ether” -> “either”.