Re: [Int-area] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue-06

Charlie Perkins <> Fri, 01 March 2019 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAD1130EF5; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:08:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.934
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY=1.157, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMNH-s6-ugX1; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE7D6130EEE; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4) (envelope-from <>) id 1gzYWZ-000EQ1-68; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:07:48 -0500
From: Charlie Perkins <>
References: <>
Organization: Blue Sky Meadows
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:07:43 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------052196980F2A1678B08815D4"
Content-Language: en-US
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956846b590522b13c959b2963346f1026d2bc9a9ba007cd6226350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 08:01:19 -0800
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 03:08:03 -0000

Hello folks,

Attached, please find a file containing more specific editorial 
suggestions and observations, along with a rfcdiff-generated file that 
highlights the differences from the current version of 

I am not expert in some areas that are important for this draft, and I 
did not read the companion documents that were cited.  I will appreciate 
any further discussion to help my understanding on those points, and 
will be happy to have further interaction on any of the suggestions that 
I have made.

Charlie P.

On 2/28/2019 7:00 PM, Charles Perkins wrote:
> Reviewer: Charles Perkins
> Review result: Almost Ready
> This document needs an applicability statement which includes the assumptions
> and the reasons it might be useful.  Deliverability needs to be expanded.
> Reasons why middleboxes would be unlikely inspect GUE fields might be included.
> For instance, the discussion in second paragraph of 5.11.1 belongs in the
> applicability statement.
> It should also be explained why arbitrary GUE extensions are less likely to be
> filtered out compared to IPv6 destination options.
> ============================================== The document assumes close
> familiarity with deployment scenarios that seem to be characterized by acronyms
> such as RSS, aRFS, TSO, LRO, etc.  While I am pretty familiar with a lot of
> encapsulation techniques, I had to study the meaning of these acronyms.  If it
> is intended to effectively restrict the intended audience, that is O.K., but
> otherwise more background is needed along with relevant citations.
> ============================================== [GUEEXTENS] is cited in a way
> that places a normative dependency on [GUEEXTENS].  So, [GUEEXTENS] belongs in
> the Normative References. ============================================== I have
> a large number of specific comments which I will post shortly in the form of a
> rfcdiff-generated file.