Re: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-10

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

The draft looks good to me.

A few nits:

   1.  Introduction

   Then the high level requirements to be fulfilled are satisfied.

I think s/satisfied/stated/ is intended here.

   1.1  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

RFC 2119 has been updated by RFC 8174 and the newer version should be
used.

   Hypervisor/Container: the logical collection of software, firmware
   and/or hardware that allows the creation and running of server or
   service appliance virtualization. tNVE is located on
   Hypervisor/Container. It is loosely used in this document to refer to
   the end device supporting the virtualization. For simplicity, we also
   use Hypervisor in this document to represent both hypervisor and
   container.

I think this would be clearer if the term you intend to use (hypervisor)
was indexed and described as such.  You could also index "container" or
"hypervisor/container" and point it to "hypervisor".  (Better would be
to use a generic word throughout and not overload a term which also has
a use of much narrower scope, but it's late to make that change.  The
use of "tenant system" is a good example of this style, as it doesn't
carry much baggage about what *type* of tenant it is.  OTOH, "tenant
system" isn't used consistently in the document.)

   1.2  Target Scenarios

   This implies that if a
   given TSI disassociates from one VN, all the MAC and/or IP addresses
   are also disassociated.  There is no need to signal the deletion of
   every MAC or IP when the TSI is brought down or deleted.

This sentence is very detailed for the context in which it appears.  To
me, it reads more as a requirement (about the dissociation action) than
part of the introduction.  And I don't see (on one reading) a clear
statement of this property among the listed requirements.  Then again,
is this intended as a firm requirement?

   2.2 VM Live Migration Event

If we've intiated a migration from hypervisor 1 to hypervisor 2, before
it is finished, can we initiate a migration from hypervisor 2 to
hypervisor 3?  That is, does the CP have to support chained
migrations-in-progress?

   2.4 VM Pause, Suspension and Resumption Events

   The VM pause event leads to the VM transiting from Running state to
   Paused state. The Paused state indicates that the VM is resident in
   memory but no longer scheduled to execute by the hypervisor [I-
   D.ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib]. The VM can be easily re-activated from Paused
   state to Running state. 

   The VM suspension event leads to the VM transiting from Running state
   to Suspended state. The VM resumption event leads to the VM
   transiting state from Suspended state to Running state. Suspended
   state means the memory and CPU execution state of the virtual machine
   are saved to persistent store.  During this state, the virtual
   machine is not scheduled to execute by the hypervisor [I-D.ietf-
   opsawg-vmm-mib]. 

>From the split-NVe point of view, is there any difference between Paused
and Suspended?

   5. VDP Applicability and Enhancement Needs

   +------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+
   | Req  | VDP       |   remarks                                     |
   |      | supported?|                                               |
   +------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+

I think "VDP supported?" would be clearer as "Supported by VDP?".  As
written now, it means "Does this requirement support VDP?".  But my
suggested wording won't fit well into this format.  Perhaps "VDP
supports?" would work.

Dale