Re: [nvo3] Document shepherd comments on draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-04

["Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[e-mail]>]

Anoop

Thanks for the new version.

Just a heads up that, as suggested previously, we have asked MBONED to review the draft. They will send any comments to the NVO3 working group list.

Best regards

Matthew

From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of EXT Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 at 06:28
To: Matthew Bocci <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, NVO3 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Document shepherd comments on draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-04

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the clarification.  We have submitted -05
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-05
to address your comments.

Let us know if it looks good to proceed.

Thanks,
Anoop

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Anoop

The ‘3’ in NVO3 comes from the original title we used during the BoF, which was 'Network Virtualization over Layer 3’. The ‘3’ then subesequently stuck.

Regards

Matthew



From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of EXT Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, 6 May 2016 at 01:19
To: Matthew Bocci <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, NVO3 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Document shepherd comments on draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-04

Matthew,

Many thanks for the review/comments.  Please see inline.

Anoop

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Authors

I think this draft is mostly good to progress, but I have a few comments that I think should be addressed before I forward it to the IESG for publication.
I have also forwarded the draft to the chairs of the MBONED working group to see if it needs further review and will wait for their response before proceeding.

Here are my comments:

(1) Title:
“A Framework for Multicast in NVO3”
Please expand NVO3 in the title. Similar to the architecture draft, this might be better as “A Framework for Multicast in Data Centre Network Virtualisation Overlays (NVO3)”.

Will do.

(As an aside, why do we have a "3" in the acronym when it doesn't appear anywhere in the expansion?  I know it's kind of late to be asking that. :))


(2) Throughout: Please make sure you expand acronyms on first use, throughout, e.g. mDNS in the Introduction.

Will do.

(3) Section 3, first paragraph.
This references STT. It might be better to reference the encapsulations that have been adopted by the working group (GUE, GENEVE, and VXLAN-GPE)  rather than an individual draft submission.

I will add them.

(4) Section 3.4, last paragraph:
S/main/maintain

Will fix.

(5) Section 9, References
You have split these into Normative and Informative references. However, you draft is informational, so I am not sure it makes sense to have any normative references. Further, you have included information documents such as the NVO3 architecture as normative references.

This follows from what the guidance from the IESG:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html
>>>
Within an RFC, references to other documents fall into two general categories: "normative" and "informative". Normative references specify documents that must be read to _understand_ or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work.
>>>

Have the authors misinterpreted the IESG guidance?

Please also include the full draft reference and version you are referencing (e.g. draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-03) rather than just the title of a draft.


Will do.

(6) ID-Nits
Please can you run ID-Nits on the draft and clear any relevant errors and warnings.

Will do.