[nvo3] Éric Vyncke's Abstain on draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-encap/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11

Thank you for the work put into this document.

I am balloting an ABSTAIN because this document sits between two chairs (French
saying). It is:

- either the sheer output of the design team, then it has no WG/IETF consensus,
meaning it must be an independent submission - or the output of the NVO3 WG,
meaning that it cannot really speak only about the design team (there are 16
occurrences of "DT" in the draft and I did not count "design team").

See also my COMMENT about section 7 about the differences with
draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01 as recommendations have been added to the DT's ones.

It would have been more useful to focus only on section 6, which is indeed an
interesting read. Thank you that section.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Matthew Bocci for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status even if it
lacks the justification for the *publication stream*.

Please note that Wassim Haddad is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will
be available (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-encap/reviewrequest/18840/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document and/or change its stream,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 5.2

`similar to those noted for Geneve above` would benefit of further explanation
as the 'main' issue for Geneve is TLV encoding and this is not the case for
GUE, or are the GUE extensions also TLV encoded ? Then this may be worth
explaining.

## Section 6.1

Please explain why the absence of a Length field is important as it can
(probably) be computed from the header (counting TLV, ...)

## Section 6.2

`Non-vendor specific TLVs` does it apply to all encapsulations or only to
Geneve ?

## Section 6.5

Unsure what is meant by `The order of the extension headers should be hardware
friendly` ? I.e., how can a designer check whether an order is HW friendly?

## Section 7

There are many additional recommendations that are *not* part of the original
DT recommendations draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01. I.e., this seems more like a WG
considerations rather than a design team considerations.