Re: [Int-dir] INTDIR Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-12

Hi Eric,

I've replied to Donald's review.

Will address your balloting comments after Donald and I converge.

Best Regards,

Xiao Min

Original

From: EricVyncke(evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>;int-ads@ietf.org <int-ads@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve.all@ietf.org>;
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org <int-dir@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年08月07日 19:41
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] INTDIR Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-12

Donald,

Thank you for your int-dir review. As you may have read, I have balloted a DISCUSS on this document, notably based on your review.

I am also expecting the authors to reply to your review.

Regards

-éric

On 05/08/2023, 13:23, "Int-dir on behalf of Donald Eastlake" <int-dir-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:int-dir-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of d3e3e3@gmail.com <mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
<draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-12.txt>. These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with
any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details
on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/> 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/&gt;>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document
as DISCUSS. I have the following DISCUSS/ABSTAIN level issues:

- I do not understand the second half of the last paragraph of Section
1. It says: "BFD for Geneve MUST be used within a TMCE unless BFD is
congestion controlled." But then seems to specify that it be
congestion controlled inside a TMCE. Would it be simpler to say that
BFD for Geneve must always be congestion controlled, if that is what
is intended?

- The wording in Section 4.1 first paragraph seems confusing and
incomplete. (I believe this has been covered in other reviews.)

- In the first paragraph of Section 6: How can it be that both "Geneve
provides security" and "Geneve does not have any inherent security
mechanisms" ?

The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD
be corrected before publication:

- In section 4, the Inner Ethernet Header MAC addresses are in the
wrong order. The Destination MAC comes first, followed by the Source
MAC in an Ethernet header, the opposite of IP.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text
improvements) with the document:

- Given the prominence of "tunnels" in the one sentence abstract, I
think it would be good to use that word in the first paragraph of the
Introduction. Possibly: "... an overlay network of tunnels by
decoupling ..." 

- Section 1, last line of first paragraph on page 3: payload -> payloads

- Section 4.1, first paragraph: "Protocol Type" -> "Ethertype" 

- Section 5, last line: that -> when

- Section 6, "not low" -> "high" 

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@gmail.com <mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com> 

_______________________________________________
Int-dir mailing list
Int-dir@ietf.org <mailto:Int-dir@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>