[nvo3] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14

Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 05 November 2019 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietf.org
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99598120B7E; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:16:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.108.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <157298496055.4506.2657073610798133355@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:16:00 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/9jrwRnHG07Xynj5CH1fgd10wC-s>
Subject: [nvo3] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nvo3/>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 20:16:01 -0000

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Ready

This is an OPS-DIR review of Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization
Encapsulation This ID proposes a new control plane agnostic tunneling protocol
primarily for network virtualization related applications.

While the document does not have a specific operational considerations section
it is a very well written document that clearly explains the issues with and
features of the proposal which includes most of the operations related
considerations. I did not see any such issues that the document did not already
deal with.

I do have one question – why, in section 4.3.1 (5) is this not a MUST