[nvo3] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-05: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nvo3-evpn-applicability-05: No Objection

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-evpn-applicability/



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

Thank you to Kyle Rose for the SECDIR review.

** Section 1.  Editorial. Consider either expanding “TOR” (which I first read
as an onion routing protocol) or use the “ToR” spelling that comes from
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt.

** Section 3.  Typo. s/addresss/addresses/

** Section 4.4

   The Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation [RFC8926] has been
   recommended to be the proposed standard for NVO3 Encapsulation.

Recommended how?

** Section 4.4

   The NVO3 encapsulation design team has made a recommendation in
   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-encap] for a control plane to:

Practically, isn’t this a WG document?  Shouldn’t this document make these
recommendations?