David,
> Three quick questions:
>
> (1) Why is this draft intended as standards track? What protocol or standard
> does it specify?
> Both the problem statement and framework drafts are Informational.
Good point. The draft should be progressed as Informational.
> (2) What is the nature of the use of RFC 2119 terms (e.g., "MUST") in
> this document?
To answer this question let's look at few examples of the use of RFC2119
terms in the document:
>From 3.1:
This document assumes that within a given non-trivial L2 physical
domain traffic from/to VMs that are in that domain, and belong to the
same L2-based CUG MUST have the same VLAN-ID.
In the above "MUST" indicates that in the context of this document
the assumption about VLAN-ID can not be violated.
>From 3.5:
In other words, the policies that
control connectivity between a given VM and its peers MUST NOT change
as the VM moves from one L2 physical domain to another.
....
Moreover,
policies, if any, within the L2 physical domain that contain a given
VM MUST NOT preclude realization of the policies that control
connectivity between this VM and its peers.
In the above "MUST" and "MUST NOT" indicates that in the context
of this document any policies within the L2 physical domain can not
interfere with the policies that control connectivity between and
given VM and its peers.
>
> (3) Why are the security considerations "TBD"? Do the authors really
> think that's acceptable?
The authors hope that once the document is accepted as an NVO3 WG
document, this section will be completed based on the feedback
we'll receive from the NVO3 WG.
> Also, a 1-week WG LC time period is really short - that will not
> permit me to do a thorough technical review of this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benson Schliesser
> > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 5:42 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [nvo3] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues
> >
> > Dear NVO3 Contributors -
> >
> > This message is to initiate a Working Group Last Call for Comments on draft
-
> > ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues. The chairs believe there is consensus to subm
it
> > this draft to the IESG for publication. Please review it and provide feedba
ck
> > on the mailing list by 19-Sep-2014.
> >
> > As a reminder, this is not an opportunity to vote. Please do not post messa
ges
> > that simply indicate support. Rather, substantial comments and feedback is
> > encouraged.
> >
> > For your convenient reference, the latest version of the draft can be found
at
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Benson & Matthew
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nvo3 mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
