Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 17 November 2023 22:56 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 43F25C14CE3F; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 14:56:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jT4KcHv9q14H; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 14:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E410C14F748; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 14:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-da37522a363so2452944276.0; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 14:55:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700261755; x=1700866555; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Z92Fc/AccfBHuiJ4SVH/y7M6wUy5R8vuTAMoWs91kqk=; b=T6Tgu9HN+/C2pSuw9oarju2jarH4BwCp5bJC/RTOZV3mlDHGCW2xRwinZJxc04L5AT usuEeB1LlmpTO1YB1y7cfKXx7p3uhn5ug38CzfZ/A7GOQe8gHPMvkzweqhcauwfrEOc+ IpxrskXGnpEmVMllQY22avtWKcxDs0Tx30MlgdJegLd+KrEqp+cj51uBkUq5Nlw0KYvZ V6i5jAfU7PNFyT3aSXv6vU2msmBFL2OqPxbAan6gqXpsucXUNY58okpBF8i/M9QcJS+C F1xHseoE5QKa4Vay/a9+JvxSCUAivmSx6gg+x14Nkz/BOqhZVjmwckUKXHB7VOwX2DtU cLtA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700261755; x=1700866555; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Z92Fc/AccfBHuiJ4SVH/y7M6wUy5R8vuTAMoWs91kqk=; b=NELBpn+EnE4sSs1smW41EOUvOFx7vC3paHjwD39lVkBUbapirFrBsTB98opPIhTaBd ZU6JLbKpuO8Rc709T1a4M3GKMwBa0AHYHp2TPafn3pFoGKeX/4Xf1OrAfZKOSRnnrAcn 4Zs3aU+Jw30VYP7T+nfFpTvPq5UKibvam8uN2fFgfbFdUpvIK1XIjwAm1vB9JZVezXmX 2fOwOB4l/CWFf46n54XwWXTKnrDGY29CmRIgqPhKot1q0gdPnLeB1SJt8kLz2OiKVgMD 7rQTHpOB1wzT3wUQxQMXevc5FbdIRpgvO0gO6cs8nsTjYoWn+upgFHGlvIZXFbhbL3x5 iTgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx09rcjlHPU2mZnpYTRGWJV2l70m7XLZYRgr5pYdPy8ffbqEqby hxpTnIcoNv4t86JfkN0ykm3qc3eALHTuQsniUaBDfuZLda8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEbxxFMOj5D0rLcIEKfliFBtjmsA9X24OoaKqyZ02oSvO2gUIklXb8cETCSHmORhM//WaiVnrK7LTsndU7i774=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:c5:b0:da3:b87b:5b75 with SMTP id i5-20020a05690200c500b00da3b87b5b75mr813984ybs.64.1700261755174; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 14:55:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+RyBmWgnz1Qyp0S+Ozww6VFT4h9Q7Mbr2GLeJvas-Z5pCK=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <202310311449008364893@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202310311449008364893@zte.com.cn>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 14:55:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUQV_pe+vpmj3TUcebFjrGyvrYX9_TdbonS+imSN5dP9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xiao Min <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
Cc: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>, nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000f162bd060a610996"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/PyfHdwKQjXY9bUMfEdS-3oLI3XQ>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 22:56:06 -0000
Hi Xiao Min, thank you for your thorough review. Please find my notes below tagged GIM3>>. Attached, please find the updated working version . Regards, Greg On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:49 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > Thank you for the reply and proposed updates. > > Please see inline with [XM-3]>>>. > > > Original > *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *To: *肖敏10093570; > *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < > nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; > *Date: *2023年10月26日 10:43 > *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for > draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > Hi Xiao Min, > thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed changes and > the proposed update. I've accepted your idea with a minor editorial > modification: > OLD TEXT: > In the first case, a communication problem between Network > Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C was observed. The > underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is working well but the Geneve > connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and NVE C. > Troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done > irrespective of the VNI value. > NEW TEXT: > In the first case, consider when a communication problem > between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C exists. > Upon the investigation, the operator discovers that the forwarding in > the underlay, e.g., the IP network, is working well. Still, the > Geneve connection is unstable for all NVE A and NVE C tenants. > Detection, troubleshooting, and localization of the problem can be > done irrespective of the VNI value. > [XM-3]>>> It looks good to me. > > > I hope that you agree with the new version. Attached, please find the new > working version of the draft and the diff highlighting all the updates. > > [XM-3]>>> It seems some of my previous comments are missed. Repeat them as > below. > > In Section 2, it says "In the latter case, the test packet MUST use the same Geneve encapsulation as the data packet (except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]), including the value in the Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) field." Why does it say "except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]"? I don't think so. > > GIM3>> If the value of the Protocol Type field indicates Ethernet payload (0x6558), then IPv4 or IPv6 encapsulated OAM packets must be identified by a different respective values in the Protocol Type field. Wou;d you agree? > > In Section 2.1, it says "The ICMP echo reply is encapsulated in Geneve as specified in Section 2.2...", that's incorrect, do you mean Section 3? > > GIM3>> I think that the reference to Section 2.2 is correct as that section defines the encapsulation of an OAM packet in Geneve using the Management VNI. Section 3 only lists references to the relevant RFCs. > In Section 2.2, it says "Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation", lacking the context of the Management VNI case. > > GIM3>> Would the following update make that clear: OLD TEXT: Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation. NEW TEXT: Active OAM over a Management VNI in the Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation. In Section 2.2, it says "The UDP source port can be used to provide entropy...", I don't think so. > > GIM3>> I agree, this is unnecessary as active OAM will use the same entropy mechanisms as the Geneve data flow. > In Section 2.2, it says "Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses. The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291]." Now that "the IP address MUST be set to the loopback address", why does it need to say "IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses"? > > GIM3>> Thank you for pointing that out. I agree, "MUST NOT" is unnecessary as "MUST be set to the loopback address" is sufficient. > > Cheers, > > Xiao Min > > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 8:07 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> Thank you for the reply. >> >> Please see inline with [XM-2]>>>. >> Original >> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >> *To: *肖敏10093570; >> *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < >> nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org >> >; >> *Date: *2023年10月12日 22:01 >> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >> Hi Xiao Min, >> thank you for your clarifications and detailed questions. Please find my >> notes below tagged by GIM2>>. Also, attached in the new working version and >> diff highlighting updates. >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 9:46 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> >>> Many thanks for your consideration of my comments. >>> >>> I noticed that a new -08 version has been posted, so my further comments >>> would be based on the latest revision. >>> >>> Please see inline. >>> Original >>> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >>> *To: *肖敏10093570; >>> *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < >>> nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org >>> >; >>> *Date: *2023年09月22日 09:09 >>> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nvo3 mailing list >>> nvo3@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>> >>> Hi Xiao Min, >>> thank you for your detailed comments and thoughtful suggestions. Please >>> find my notes below tagged GIM>>. Attached are the new working version of >>> the draft and the diff highlighting the updates. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Greg >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 7:12 PM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for taking my suggestions into account. I believe this document >>>> is on the right way. >>>> >>>> Still, I want to extract some text from the working version for further >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> In section 2.1, it says "Encapsulation of test packets for both cases >>>> is discussed in Section 2.2." >>>> >>>> As I've said before, the OAM over Geneve encap defined in section 2.2 >>>> applies *only* to the Management VNI, i.e., the first case. >>>> >>> GIM>> I agree and removed this new sentence appending the following >>> sentence to the paragraph that introduces the Management VNI: >>> NEW TEXT: >>> Encapsulation of >>> >>> test packets using the Management VNI is discussed in Section 2.2. >>> >>> [XM]>>> Thank you. Except for this sentence in Section 2.1, there are >>> still some sentences in Section 1 that seems confusing to me, e.g., it says >>> "note that the IP encapsulation of OAM applies to those Virtual Network >>> Identifiers (VNIs) that support the use of the necessary values of the >>> Protocol Type field in the Geneve header". Could you please go through the >>> whole document to make all the statements consistent? Some references >>> to draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve and draft-xiao-nvo3-pm-geneve may be added to >>> help the reader understand the difference between the Management VNI case >>> and the really deployed VNI case. >>> >> GIM2>> Would the following edit of the text in Section 1 make the text >> clear: >> OLD TEXT: >> Also, >> note that the IP encapsulation of OAM applies to those Virtual >> Network Identifiers (VNIs) that support the use of the necessary >> values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, i.e., >> Ethertypes for IPv4 or IPv6. It does not apply to VNIs that lack >> that support, e.g., VNIs that only support Ethernet Ethertypes. >> Analysis and definition of other types of OAM encapsulation in Geneve >> are outside the scope of this document. >> NEW TEXT: >> The IP >> encapsulation of Geneve OAM defined in this document applies to an >> overlay service by way of introducing a Management Virtual >> Network Identifier (VNI) that could be used in combination with >> various values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, i.e., >> Ethertypes for IPv4 or IPv6. Analysis and definition of other types >> of OAM encapsulation in Geneve are outside the scope of this >> document. >> >> [XM-2]>>> various values? It looks only two values, i.e., Ethertypes for >> IPv4 or IPv6. >> >> >> Could you highlight other cases that can benefit from a clarification? >> >> [XM-2]>>> In Section 2, it says >> >> "In the latter case, the test packet MUST use the same Geneve encapsulation as the data packet (except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]), including the value in the Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) field." >> Why does it say "except for the value in the Protocol Type field [RFC8926]"? I don't think so. >> In Section 2.1, it says "The ICMP echo reply is encapsulated in Geneve as specified in Section 2.2...", that's incorrect, do you mean Section 3? >> In Section 2.2, it says "Active OAM in Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation", lacking the context of the Management VNI case. >> In Section 2.2, it says "The UDP source port can be used to provide entropy...", I don't think so. >> In Section 2.2, it says >> " Destination IP: IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses. The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291]." >> Now that "the IP address MUST be set to the loopback address", why does it need to say "IP address MUST NOT be of one of tenant's IP addresses"? >> >> >>> In section 1, the definition of VAP is introduced, and the only use of >>>> it is within section 2.2, it says "Source IP: IP address of the originating >>>> VAP". >>>> >>>> I'm a bit confused, to my understanding the VAP is irrelevant to the >>>> test on Management VNI, the Source IP should be set to the IP address of >>>> the originating NVE but not the originating VAP. >>>> >>> GIM>> Thank you for pointing that out to me. I removed the references to >>> VAP in the document and updated the text accordingly. >>> >>> [XM]>>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> In section 2.1, it says "The Management VNI SHOULD be terminated on the >>>> tenant-facing side of the Geneve encap/decap functionality, not the >>>> DC-network-facing side (per definitions in Section 4 of [RFC8014]) so that >>>> Geneve encap/decap functionality is included in its scope." >>>> >>>> I'm not sure this statement is accurate. The Management VNI is a >>>> specific VNI not really deployed at the tenant-facing side, so it seems >>>> impossible to be terminated on the tenent-facing side. >>>> >>> GIM>> You are right. The Management VNI is a logical construct and, as >>> such, where it is terminated is also a logical entity. By pointing out >>> where the termination of the Management VNI happens, the document provides >>> useful information to an implementer. That information is important to >>> ensure that Geneve encap/decap functionality is exercised by an active OAM. >>> >>> [XM]>>> OK. >>> >>> >>> In section 1, it says "IP encapsulation conforms to these requirements >>>> and is a suitable encapsulation of active OAM protocols in a Geneve overlay >>>> network." >>>> >>>> I'm not sure this statement is comprehensive. For the first case >>>> (Management VNI) discussed in section 2.1, I agree that IP encapsulation is >>>> enough, but for the second case, Ethernet encapsulation is also needed, >>>> which is clearly specified in draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve. >>>> >>> GIM>> I agree that the IP encapsulation using the Management VNI >>> addresses the first of two scenarios analyzed in Section 2.1. But I don't >>> think that it does not conform to the requirements listed in Section 2. >>> Could you help me by identifying which of five requirements cannot be >>> fulfilled by the IP encapsulation using the Management VNI? >>> >>> [XM]>>> REQ#1. As you indicated above, Management VNI is a logical >>> construct, not the VNI really deployed at the NVE, and considering that the Ethernet >>> over Geneve encap is the most popular one, I don't think a strict fate >>> sharing can be fulfilled by the IP encapsulation using the Management VNI. >>> >> GIM2>> By using the Management VNI, in my opinion, we ensure the fate >> sharing of an active Geneve OAM with Geneve overlay service. I agree that >> the Management VNI may not be the most useful method to monitor an Ethernet >> service over the Geneve tunnel. I think that is clear from the text of the >> document. >> >> [XM-2]>>> OK, it's up to you. I reserve my suggestion to change the >> quoted text. >> >>> >>> In section 2.1, it says "The second case requires that a test packet be >>>> transmitted using the VNI value for the traffic that is encountering >>>> problems and the test packet is experiences network treatment as the >>>> tenant's packets." >>>> >>>> I'm not sure this statement is accurate, "that is encountering >>>> problems" seems applicable to ICMP Ping but not applicable to BFD, because >>>> BFD itself is used to detect traffic problems. >>>> >>> GIM>> I think that the goal of BFD is well described in the Abstract of >>> RFC 5880: >>> This document describes a protocol intended to detect faults in the >>> bidirectional path between two forwarding engines, including >>> interfaces, data link(s), and to the extent possible the forwarding >>> engines themselves, with potentially very low latency. >>> >>> From this definition I conclude that BFD detects faults, i.e., problems >>> in the elements listed in the Abstract. Would you agree? >>> >>> [XM]>>> Let me elaborate a bit more. This sentence in Section 2.1 >>> implies that in the second case a test packet is transmitted only when the >>> traffic is encountering problems, IMHO that's not the case, take BFD as an >>> example, in the second case the BFD Control packets should be transmitted >>> from the beginning, but not after detecting some traffic problems. >>> >> GIM2>> Thank you for helping me to understand your concern. I hope I get >> it now. Would the following update make the message unambiguous and >> acceptable: >> OLD TEXT: >> The second case requires that a test packet be transmitted using the >> VNI value for the traffic that is encountering problems and the test >> packet experiences network treatment as the tenant's packets. Detail >> of that use case are outside the scope of this specification. >> NEW TEXT: >> >> [XM-2]>>> I don't know what's wrong, but it seems your NEW TEXT >> disappeared. The good thing is that I can see it from your attached Diff >> file, and that's fine to me. At the same time, I propose to change the text >> in Section 2.1 as below. >> >> OLD TEXT >> >> In the first case, a communication problem between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C was observed. The underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is working well but the Geneve connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and NVE C. Troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done irrespective of the VNI value. >> NEW TEXT >> In the first case, a communication problem between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C *exists*. The underlay, e.g., IP network, forwarding is working well but the Geneve connection is unstable for all tenants of NVE A and NVE C. *Detection,* troubleshooting and localization of the problem can be done irrespective of the VNI value. >> >> Cheers, >> Xiao Min >> >> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Xiao Min >>> >>> >>> BTW, "the test packet is experiences network treatment" has nit. >>>> >>> GIM>> Thank you for catching it. Fixed. >>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Xiao Min >>>> Original >>>> *From: *GregMirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> >>>> *To: *肖敏10093570; >>>> *Cc: *aldrin.ietf@gmail.com <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>;nvo3@ietf.org < >>>> nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org>; >>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org < >>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; >>>> *Date: *2023年08月07日 06:12 >>>> *Subject: **Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>> >>>> Hi Xiao Min, >>>> thank you for your suggestions. I've updated the draft to address your >>>> concern. Please let me know if you agree with the changes highlighted in >>>> the attached diff (the working version also includes updates that address >>>> the editorial updates suggested by Donald Eastlake). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 1:12 AM <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I support progressing this document to publication. >>>>> >>>>> At the same time, I strongly suggest the authors to rethink about the >>>>> scope of this document. >>>>> >>>>> This document introduces two cases of using active OAM protocols for >>>>> Geneve, the first case is to use the Management VNI, and the second case is >>>>> to use the VNIs really deployed in the NVE, that's fine to me. However, >>>>> it's said that the OAM encapsulation defined in Section 2.2 can be used for >>>>> both cases, I don't think so. As specified in draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve, >>>>> in order to use the VNIs really deployed, VAP based OAM solution is >>>>> necessary, i.e., the MAC/IP address of VAP must be used as long as it's >>>>> available, and then the VNI can be identified through VAP-to-VNI mapping. >>>>> Besides, for the second case, both Ethernet over Geneve encap and IP over >>>>> Geneve encap are needed. So with that said, the OAM encap defined in >>>>> Section 2.2 can be slightly tweaked to be applicable to the first case >>>>> only, and the OAM encap for the second case can be made outside the scope >>>>> of this document. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Xiao Min >>>>> Original >>>>> *From: *SamAldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>> *To: *NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>;nvo3-chairs@ietf.org <nvo3-chairs@ietf.org >>>>> >;draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org < >>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam@ietf.org>; >>>>> *Date: *2023年06月28日 14:27 >>>>> *Subject: **[nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for >>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07* >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>>> nvo3@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>>> >>>>> This email begins a two-week working group last call for >>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-07 >>>>> >>>>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam/ >>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve/>). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working >>>>> group list. If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no >>>>> comments and believe it is ready for publication as an informational RFC, >>>>> please also indicate so to the WG email list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies >>>>> to this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with >>>>> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >>>>> >>>>> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, >>>>> please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of >>>>> any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers >>>>> from all the Authors and Contributors. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Currently there are no IPR disclosures against this document. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please >>>>> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been >>>>> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This poll will run until Friday 12th July 2023. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sam and Matthew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for d… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Mach Chen
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Sam Aldrin
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Sami Boutros
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Black, David
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… xiao.min2
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Santosh P K
- Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll f… Greg Mirsky