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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Fri, 14 September 2018 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524DD130DEB; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHnjezytGvyi; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4324E130DE9; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 14-v6so2727825ywe.2; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kRIDfrNKLqksizNXoQNTxhNIeLWpoBIkroOe4SO0+n0=; b=U5Y8cRwmdTCh3FOQ9Dl+x4YhjNLerWmSrHZNF9J4bcY9KiDK5kN8HXAkiz0OYQU8FK R4xj5MeDDkqYSS6Nne0y2lYCSoE1Ke0NmalXZAASAQLIo+lqp+0VBSrGsju5z95dy8WW kt5eteTZSTDtxbNR5eTzp20zB35aNKngWnfuU0camZ7qNYNhFlkyx36rNaK4wfgb0fho HR4AHvj9/yzoXc5kxXZvRWVl0LnXkch4uEJi2kbQT4R7QsSATZf8SlAw+Dzoa2BRtGtq 82RRkpz614StTn71xnHLtKndNdvYYplvQ+cZk4ddHg09oYNSC77rgN0283mds3wsCawI ZyJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kRIDfrNKLqksizNXoQNTxhNIeLWpoBIkroOe4SO0+n0=; b=IHjYnvgejajEEuX1osI4g2Xm+4By1eE721Te/X69E6uNWrQjSFOwHcL0u7FRX9Wtmv DZgiBppPZgOepa9/0FTVYh/ikWSekOouVqQAakOi8/H2e2ny6f0FYZ0qLob7xEBuo3Cn BV6qQXQoQIiCfAur3NS7t4G5xrHM7wUSOtfrIjwB6Hw33J9CpjXT0+9gI7o+CLE9aMG3 HydPzfz7EhmKtr3Rt2jtJRfKhagaFZkbG8LsjbEsubk2K9L1M5et83TafGYA+tM9LLZr wwv8uI+shh/anjr5R64VhocLnqHXdISJDHELL1iRLjdGWrvCzM4uE+eusFnMqu55UUiu jzmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51D9y8Vug1pKQnVCsJrMYrf1ZyXjFjaOTmQ6NwCCkd350QBXdPUg QsMQ4N0NxSf3V2D0OI6LLQfmOwxHZ6LHItxyDMqVP3uq
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbDaA4wEAEeE+Uze1P994NGjRfSfW2LrBTF5mdn2yk9UCfds0iAAkKp0S2kMFGAFHwQzDADhq7RyPYX5BV6kUo=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:530a:: with SMTP id h10-v6mr5630597ywb.411.1536936693426; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 09:51:19 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Cc: "Black, David" <>, IETF list <>,, Bob Briscoe <>, Linda Dunbar <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a76c630575d5f58c"
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: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:51:37 -0000

If I might offer an opinion here ...

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

> 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!