Fwd: RtgDir review: draft-rtg-dt-encap-02

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Mon, 06 July 2015 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFAC1B2F3B for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zz9FLR7EFgLt for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59F4E1B2ED4 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.26] ([78.197.168.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t66G1cTf010557 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:01:40 -0700
Subject: Fwd: RtgDir review: draft-rtg-dt-encap-02
References: <CAAFAkD-vfrXA0ejLE7Gnk=q8wZbS4SzC7+=_TJY+qzTXv4R9OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <CAAFAkD-vfrXA0ejLE7Gnk=q8wZbS4SzC7+=_TJY+qzTXv4R9OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <559AA65B.2090702@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 18:01:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAFAkD-vfrXA0ejLE7Gnk=q8wZbS4SzC7+=_TJY+qzTXv4R9OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020007030804050804020306"
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVa7XbqBfBTqhahp2XY3uPUd5gXicUstl/Sd8lefqEgPU6NZljyig6bGAtfegC4BLp54hAgQH+FL5lGoqhOHl8/n
X-Sonic-ID: C;NC0CSfgj5RGGtufp6CYw6A== M;phDeSfgj5RGGtufp6CYw6A==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/Ocs7ZQ-XTPlOyHZJYgx-4NjoD9E>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:01:59 -0000



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	RtgDir review: draft-rtg-dt-encap-02
Resent-Date: 	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-From: 	hadi@mojatatu.com
Resent-To: 	draft-rtg-dt-encap@ietf.org
Date: 	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:20:46 -0400
From: 	Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
To: 	rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
CC: 	rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org>rg>, draft-rtg-dt-encap@tools.ietf.org



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, 
please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve
them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-rtg-dt-encap-02
Reviewer: Jamal Hadi Salim
Review Date: 6/30/15 (later than requested, sorry)
Intended Status: Informational
WG LC End Date: unknown

Summary:

The document has significant good work and recommendations for
encapsulation design. Many years of experience in issues found
with encapsulation deployments are discussed. There are times
where i lost track what the document was about because issues
were being discussed without making recommendations on what is needed
from an encapsulation perspective to deal with those issues; otoh,
a good read is section 18 which would mention an issue and in the
same breath suggests how a design should handle said issue.

The document needs at least one more pass.

I have some minor concerns about this document that I believe are 
resolvable.
Annotated comments attached.

cheers,
jamal