Re: [nvo3-dt-encap] [nvo3] Encap draft published by design team

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/2017 3:26 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> Admittedly, without any actual TLVs defined in Geneve all of this is
>> all just speculation on my part!
>>
>> Tom
> Agreed, and more specifically, regardless of the flexibility of TLVs in
> general, if the negotiation protocol specifies a fixed set of them, each
> with fixed, known length, then even though the TLV allows flexibility in
> what COULD appear, a given pair of endpoints can rely on a fixed set
> that is easy to parse in parallel.
>
Sure, if you require protocol negotiation to precede use of the
dataplane then not only can we define the required order of TLVs, but
we can also define the allowable set of TLVs that each side can send.
The concept of having ignorable TLVs could just go away (that is a
good thing IMO). Option negotiation is probably one of things that
mades TCP options deployable and avoids the concept of ignoring
options after negotiation.

But, as I said this idea creates a new dependency on a control plane
which is TBD. I'm afraid this could be a opening a Pandora's box of
new complexity that the group didn't bargain for...

Tom