[nvo3] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 04 December 2019 18:13 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietf.org
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6757120911; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 10:13:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, nvo3-chairs@ietf.org, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, nvo3@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.111.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <157548322373.11109.8094931683874603158.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:13:43 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/l78GHsr_W3fRyaNHZzkFGFoRRoM>
Subject: [nvo3] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 18:13:44 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the really well written document that addresses all transport related question well (and thanks to David for the early TSV review!). I only have one minor process point that need to be addressed before publication: Inline with RFC6335 the Assignee and Contact of the port entry should also be updated to IESG <iesg@ietf.org> and IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> respectively. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) One small comment/question on the editorial note in sec 4.4.1: "It was discussed during TSVART early review if the level of requirement for maintaining tunnel MTU at the ingress has to be "MAY" or "SHOULD". The discussion concluded that it was appropriate to leave this as "MAY", considering the high level of state to be maintained. I would have preferred a SHOULD and I'm not sure I understand what state your are talking about...? 2) And one more small question on sec 4.4.1. in general: Is the assumption that all tunnel packets have the same options (and therefore same Geneve header length) at a certain ingress, or should the announced MTU always consider the maximum length that a certain ingress could produce. Would be good to clarify this in the document! 3) Section 6: "When crossing an untrusted link, such as the public Internet, IPsec [RFC4301] may be used to provide authentication and/or encryption of the IP packets formed as part of Geneve encapsulation." Should this maybe be a normative SHOULD and not a lower case "may"? 3) And one random thought on the protocol design (given we all love to design protocols :-) ): Was it considered to require to have critical options first in order to speed up processing?
- [nvo3] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-nv… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
- Re: [nvo3] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Ganga, Ilango S
- Re: [nvo3] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [nvo3] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-iet… Ganga, Ilango S