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

Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com> Fri, 12 August 2016 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2906A12D0A1; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2O9dr-clNvRk; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3766D12B029; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CPI39849; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:51:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML701-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.175) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 21:51:44 +0100
Received: from DFWEML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.179]) by dfweml701-cah.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.175]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:51:39 -0700
From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
To: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16
Thread-Index: AQHR9GXuD/LjW/KKmE2qwfojjNoYWqBFujHQ
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:51:38 +0000
Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D572BF115@dfweml501-mbb>
References: <EE7359A5-ACD3-4CD1-B1B0-E01579203FFE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EE7359A5-ACD3-4CD1-B1B0-E01579203FFE@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.153.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.57AE36E2.0048, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: d8054439985820d8fbe3b343c21d66f0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/W8SU3zJgLvfYVd5VjkL9NuwoXeA>
Subject: Re: [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 20:51:51 -0000

Hi Jouni,

Thank you for the review and correction. Pls see inline below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:51 AM
To: gen-art@ietf.org (gen-art@ietf.org); draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap.all@ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16

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

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.

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..

Editorials/nits:
 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.
[Lucy] I will check. 
 o In the Introduction give a reference to EtherType e.g., the repository where they
   are maintained or by whom they are maintained.
[Lucy] I will put RFC7042 as the reference.
 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..”
[Lucy] ack.
 o On line 143 I would also (following the previous style in the paragraph) capitalize
   “wide area networks” as well.
[Lucy] ack.
 o In multiple places (lines 236, 887) the reference is after the full stop. Place full
   stop after the reference.
[Lucy] My mistake. Will correct them.
 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.
[Lucy] I would prefer to use two teams in the document. Tunnel ingress and egress is the view from network perspective,
And encapsulator/decapsulator is the view at the ingress or egress. E.g. it is odd to say encapsulator IP address. I open to add a clarification if that causes a concern.

 o On line 654 is says:
 	        MUST comply with requirement 1 and 8-10 in Section 5 of
   How is this “MUST” enforced?
[Lucy] Do you concern on the wording or the implementation? 

 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.
[Lucy] This section describes middlebox specialty on IPv6 traffic. Most UDP applications do not perform UDP checksum in IPv4 network; most UDP applications perform UDP checksum in IPv6 network because of IPv6 requirement [RFC2460]. Thus some middleboxes validate UDP checksum if it is in IPv6. [RFC6935] [RFC6936] relax the need to perform UDP checksum in some special cases, which is applicable to this draft. But we need to state out the potential impact that is specific in IPv6.  
 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.
[Lucy] By IETF standard. :)  How about replace "MUST NOT" with "are not appropriate"? (match the wording in requirement 3 of Section 2.1.1)  
 o Line 909 typo “ether” -> “either”.
[Lucy] ack. Thx. 

Regards,
Lucy

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art