IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] Review of draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Sat, 06 May 2017 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696DF12947C for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I4yMDPRyv5iy for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D52C12947D for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id a72so10287608qkj.2 for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 May 2017 10:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LA5EPgm4vF0MIh94HH+PPHRODsCDq/Sic97gKCgGZv4=; b=IcUrGdNkc1z9R/+mSUxYTHD9cOCt3VQwhLpPENahsLoGwsTjzo8C4sUhuriwdpdENR RQZqxOS+mqU2MmT/fVuX9Lz9NGd9DLJfJRWb2FNllAW/zM3u/rp7o1dMes20Tn/VuQYY 6VNmw6l+70paWXJoI3E7leJDXspqnd3H5r9Wwho9uvJcqdn5l4TTV7LyItXl7kMC3dzI oizWR2O2YY6ARMOwyzx7FVpMGFbz1I/7yvtrGXA0BGSvsVzLNmAXjtzMjESJCOwGXOSV 3bjyM29BYPvJCe6cbAXtuE0gMTaksMQ8BVTI8tOlUwH3YyEIr+RQqUQYZYMwUIJq+tj7 TY+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LA5EPgm4vF0MIh94HH+PPHRODsCDq/Sic97gKCgGZv4=; b=jWWqm7wdfg8Fj4OuAQP+srhOgbTO9ighD616GH9+MFiQwUnQ1cTOPBOAVPFhG1ceg0 FoeDB4TaStEUAtchr238KhZELppUjBnd8gmglxmhH5VroCx5j2dS6zI0xE0rKbxhYaUZ 57JOEf0i+ofyhYwXEnxYzLeaY8mykEWDTBqgMIgcY8lviSzCAzHMoCjxTDnIJB7PCKa0 Zuvzt7sgV4ubD5dztY0o9q+KnqdYgd+tyWeRNw2ogZcsQDHWFaN53EvlmOc/yZpQ9mdG QOBkUvl7PnlEJnGiyXaUKGyvzQ+NP+3wkV+2/TWVaPmAzSCLGV008y/+8/qvMjt55BHt GDPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD2D44o268GOQ55DctyVQe4cIHuVZX4XSmhnp/qW5SJ7jSu/61p QdBymxUREvlIl5y0Iq1GrtTWeK9lUvg9
X-Received: by 10.55.89.196 with SMTP id n187mr17329159qkb.322.1494090033255; Sat, 06 May 2017 10:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.97.10 with HTTP; Sat, 6 May 2017 10:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 10:00:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S36vsSePXZ0e7ZQdKkRi6+mozR1gBVubMLgVxRfCLJ6AGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Fv2sJE6h3ZB-EEZNdLHquyqA7Io>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Review of draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 06 May 2017 17:00:35 -0000

- As I mentioned in a rebuttal to this objection the flag-fields can
be extended with for flags. This has already been implemented, the
objection is not valid.

DT: We are documenting the concerns based on what is already out there
–  a mailing list rebuttal or how it can be sorted out with “this has
already been implemented” doesn’t sound very helpful.

Sorry, I don't understand this statement at all.

A technical objection was raised, a thorough explanation on the
mailing list was given as to why it's not valid, the protocol draft
describes the necessary mechanism, and the mechanism has been
implemented and running. The discussion pertaining to the this (and
many other issues) is in the nvo3 archives and could have been found
with a little diligence. If you are truly attempting to do an
objective analysis and perform an objective selection for one of these
protocols then how can this possibly not be helpful?

Anyway, please remove the objection from the next version your draft,
it is NOT valid!

Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email