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

[Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>]

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]> 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]> on behalf of EXT Anoop Ghanwani <
> [e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, 6 May 2016 at 01:19
> To: Matthew Bocci <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, Benson Schliesser <
> [e-mail]>, NVO3 <[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]> 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.
>