Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-04

"Black, David" <> Tue, 18 September 2018 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D6B130E4D; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=YBVpTH/M; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=Ko5UaG92
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pmOQupg2410Y; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BABC130E21; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1537283691; x=1568819691; h=from:cc:to:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=0T+8a20vbh2iuu3XgJOiTo5Yy5U+lW7+TRzAvvQzBcQ=; b=YBVpTH/Me7Vp/Sb+NIZJuoNrDRfB0z0QQoZmvjePHmwGt+ZTmL9oRy8M t3OmDSCcSjhjqGeIl0RtA9f4ee+A7T+Juv9X4tbGwg5ZsNP8eyK08KR7W uIyvAs2tiYU/4N4V9FEkm8eTmQ9R6baSd/wDrXWz10FSRU0teK0EcKm4E s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 18 Sep 2018 10:14:50 -0500
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id w8IFD36L159010; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:15:37 -0400
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2mjrgd3wf9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:15:36 -0400
From: "Black, David" <>
Cc: IETF list <>, "" <>, Bob Briscoe <>, Linda Dunbar <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Black, David" <>
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256; 18 Sep 2018 21:15:33 +0600
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id w8IFFUS9004224 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:15:32 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 w8IFFUS9004224
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=jan2013; t=1537283733; bh=8GrMAvJSkHBRs7II6mvIzroiR7Q=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Ko5UaG924aAestXyBC2LckI3xfe5bgoAkrI3wHkB9KR/i3vcxoNIHV1v5m7tLHnPo imZkHRh3jyAZrlBcy/ueJjEyNVFWztbfNYQc96TUJiTNW/GAdw3pItS2mUgPw4BeVY IXI4hF2SGIgWg8h4x0rM+U2Ntt5oRzWVqHZOnxvQ=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 w8IFFUS9004224
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:15:05 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id w8IFF5fE024900 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:15:06 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:15:05 -0400
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-04
Thread-Index: AQHUSTKisXCjryIZFECZqK2mckAgn6Tu+cXwgAEkbICAAAdCgIAGCNsA
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:15:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363028FF70MX307CL04corpem_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Classifications: public, GIS Solicitation
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-09-18_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809180153
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:15:42 -0000

In that case …

IETF Last Call Comment: The status of this document should be “Informational” not “Best Current Practice” as the “Practice” described in this document appears to be neither “Best” nor “Current” (in the sense of widely deployed).  If this change of status is made, then all RFC 2119 keywords ought to be removed from this document.

Thanks, --David

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF []
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 10:51 AM
Cc: Black, David; IETF list;; Bob Briscoe; Linda Dunbar;;
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-04

If I might offer an opinion here ...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:26 AM Behcet Sarikaya <<>> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:03 PM Black, David <<>> wrote:
> #. It does not seem as if the NVO WG has discussed the purpose of using normative text in this draft. See detailed comments.

> [Linda] The “Intended status” of the draft is “Best Current Practice”. So all the text are not “normative”. Is it Okay?

Not really – this draft might be better targeted as “Informational” as it is not a comprehensive review of current practice (best or otherwise) nor an overall set of recommendations, e.g., as Bob wrote “it just asserts what appears to be one view of how a whole VM Mobility system works.”

At present we have no intention of changing the intended status because that decision should be deferred until IESG Review where we expect to receive an authoritative view.

Right -  this is pretty clear in The IESG is supposed to make sure the status coming out makes sense, whether the intended status going in made sense or not.

Having said that, I would encourage people to take their best shot at recommending the intended status going into IESG Review, because having 15 people who haven't thought about the intended status as much as other people should have, trying to figure that out during a telechat week makes more sense if the document comes in with an obviously inappropriate intended status - if you can send a document with an appropriate intended status, the document is more likely to come out with the right status, in my experience.

Do the right thing, of course!