Hi, I am the document shepherd for draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-05.txt. As discussed at IETF 87, the authors of this draft have requested that it be handled as an individual submission to the IESG. This is not the product of an IETF working group. The draft has an intended status of ŒExperimental', which I believe is appropriate.
I have reviewed that draft and found it to be clear and well written. Since the draft is intended to document the current design of an existing, implemented protocol, I do not have specific technical comments. I only have minor or editorial comments, which I hope the authors will take into consideration. Once these have been addressed, I will post a document shepherd write up. As a part of the Œdocument quality¹ section of the shepherd¹s write-up, I also need to ask for any declarations that the protocol has been implemented. Please let me know if you are aware of implementations. Please direct any comments/discussion to the NVO3 list. Best regards, Matthew -- Major Comments ============== None Minor comments ============== I-D Nits: ---------- I-D nits throws up a number of issues. Please can you fix these. Here is the output: idnits 2.12.18 tmp/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 15 longer pages, the longest (page 1) being 61 lines Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ** There are 423 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 11 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - == Line 26 has weird spacing: '...t-Draft is s...' == Line 36 has weird spacing: '... at any ...' == Line 39 has weird spacing: '... The list ...' == Line 113 has weird spacing: '.... This is n...' == Line 126 has weird spacing: '... the indiv...' == (38 more instances...) -- The document date (October 16, 2013) is 7 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - == Missing Reference: 'ECMP' is mentioned on line 121, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC4601' is defined on line 836, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5015' is defined on line 840, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4541' is defined on line 844, but no explicit reference was found in the text Author Count: ‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹ There are 8 authors listed at the top of the draft. Please reduce this to fit within the RFC editor guideline of 5. One way to do this might be to follow the example of other RFCs, with editors listed at the top, but other authors include in the authors section of the document lower down (see RFC6310 for an example). Introduction, 3rd Para: ‹‹‹‹‹ S/concomitant/common Section 3.1, 1st Para: ‹‹‹‹‹ Add references to TRILL and SPB. Section 3.2: ‹‹‹‹‹‹ s/multitenant/multi-tenant Section 4.2, 3rd Para: ‹‹‹‹‹- Missing reference to PIM-SM Figure 1: ‹‹‹‹‹ The bit-alignment of some the fields is hard to read, and there is text that appears to leak out of the fields on the left hand side. Please look at reformatting this figure. Figure 2: ‹‹‹‹‹ Same comment as for Figure 1. Section 7: ‹‹‹‹‹‹ This section claims that VXLAN meets the requirements outlined in the NVO3 working group charter. You may want to qualify this by stating that this draft is not a product of the NVO3 working group, and add an informational reference to the NVO3 Gap Analysis draft (draft-ietf-nvo3-gap-analysis-00). Section 9: ‹‹‹‹ Please be explicit as to the name of the registry that IANA has allocated the value from. This is the ³Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry². _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
