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

[Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>]

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.