[sfc] AD review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 11 August 2017 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309C9132190 for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 GXRjdqCQOpEy for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22d.google.com (mail-wr0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22d]) (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 E6E21127ABE for <sfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id c24so17924246wra.1 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=C2A6scTsluKCBjQCZ8Zc/EZCT3e0oEydfdnHNgO3r3g=; b=bO0SHC+iUbNG5G5z3Y5E6Fn6HPHsKgn+59EvrGdnyxT478m0o9kJOUfWq47nD+EZ6V OmFDrb+hjCmyfcTJ0AL0OumqTLJrb5RSod9+1errYmmtDow9JUZ8G+0h9kZBCind2zan MOHKk4raLEWrHGP0o2ep173a7JDYAw1nO8LbaZ+ZUDCca5HccH6t+cGt6ziBjE9Ka6vI rYYLmYiYdNyFk7dB/mtCEl4g5iPJSZj/Hl4Kh6Om4put4rIV5RyrlB7seVTaITGinoA4 7oQ6F5wwyxSSUh0Go0VLBYhNjFW2am6BS59zjGYnWYp44ODvcQS/wCqdH3RKBV1ES4t6 gyKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=C2A6scTsluKCBjQCZ8Zc/EZCT3e0oEydfdnHNgO3r3g=; b=Db3leNJt8bXexRO5GlapMsPGdbwdFjOWBPfC2zhoOdM1ijiB0txsG2FzFJXBG/w0gX NzUweGesikvTHunpgc3ypIHeNSZG2jpPIInt1BoRgvHsJAeVS7BNAptCAtrA7+/PvER6 P2amKoPDp1AmeQMlUAmKkG3XUzPHnqp2osHr5kBVTouWAi5rky/Ju+LuzducU8PNZbCa ZDhudeOaVatD4Ig/R1LMn6i8YSEyUqu7eescVxzOQmsr6N+O9j3djKKO1A6hbphq1x67 Vb1xa0Wk8UsneDpkc8mCAqklAtW9I6C/nGdV7Is28VOxu0QOjAkGvshJgpywsHwUJiYh G50g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gyaGGX0mqE8C9iId63+Iygy1PhgOefEIKZ5C3Cx/8pb8q46UhE 3h5G8fW/EZ6W2UrbdYR+ZwDHc4ry8HO8/eM=
X-Received: by 10.223.128.163 with SMTP id 32mr10963781wrl.99.1502492304111; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.154.108 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:58:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1reNXt+n0=1gP8RV3AHKRfP2v6URrTriTfxexHTcjxqjOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c069d56107eaa05568240db"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/RhaIf6vvb2pskuuAi6gwInNUJNw>
Subject: [sfc] AD review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 22:58:28 -0000

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-18.  First,
I would like to thank the editors, Carlos, Uri, and Paul, as well as the
many contributors for their work on this document.  It has improved
substantially.

I do have a few minor comments from my review.  They are below.  I will
proceed to ask for an IETF Last Call now and schedule this draft for Aug
31; for that telechat date, I will require a very active shepherd as well
as editors.

Please do SUBMIT the latest editor's version of this draft ASAP.  Version
numbers are cheap and it is much better for reviewers to see the latest
version. This must be the process going forward to avoid the same points
being brought up multiple times.

1) As Acee already noted, receivers of unassigned flags MUST ignore the
value.  There are a couple places to fix this.

2) Given the consensus in NVO3 and that VXLAN-GPE will be progressed as an
informational document described an alternative that was not selected for
standardization, I would prefer a different example in Sec 6.1 Table 1.

3) In Sec 7.1, there is a sentence "In some cases they may terminate, and
be able to inspect encrypted traffic."  Unless there is a strong technical
need to point this out, I would pick a different example.  There is a great
deal of current controversy and discussion happening in TLS currently - and
this is likely to trigger that discussion unnecessarily.

4) I am happy to see that IEEE (
https://regauth.standards.ieee.org/standards-ra-web/pub/view.html#registries)
is now showing the EtherType 0x894F as referring to this draft.  Thanks!

Regards,
Alia