[nvo3] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13

[Michael Richardson via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Michael Richardson
Review result: Ready

To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe/

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication
to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s
lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends
on the stage that the document has reached.

The document is not yet in WGLC, and has not been recently adopted.
It appears that the document has been revised since the previous RtgDir
review at:
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02-rtgdir-early-frost-2016-07-07/

Document: draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13
Reviewer: your-name
Review Date: date
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D

Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

Comments:

I found the following minor issues.

} Instance Bit (I bit):
} The I bit MUST be set to indicate a valid VNI.

This bit is part of RFC7348, so it ought to be described in section 2.
Thank you for the recap!

} Version (Ver):
} Indicates VXLAN-GPE protocol version. The initial version is 0. If a
} receiver does not support the version indicated it MUST drop the packet.

It seems that since the previous version had these as R bits, and they are
now Ver bits, and they were set to 0 before, that means that this is an
RFC7348 packet.  So this protocol should be version -01.

3.4 a reference for how to process OAM packets would be helpful.

4.2 is often undeployale if larger MTUs can not be accomodated.
It would be nice if VXLAN-GPE supported fragmentation in some fashion.
This is particularly relevant if IPsec would be used for security.
This document does suffer from "Just Use IPsec" (rfc5406)

Nits: none noticed.