Matthew, Many thanks for the review/comments. Please see inline.
Anoop On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < [email protected]> wrote: > Authors > > I think this draft is mostly good to progress, but I have a few comments > that I think should be addressed before I forward it to the IESG for > publication. > I have also forwarded the draft to the chairs of the MBONED working group > to see if it needs further review and will wait for their response before > proceeding. > > Here are my comments: > > (1) Title: > “A Framework for Multicast in NVO3” > Please expand NVO3 in the title. Similar to the architecture draft, this > might be better as “A Framework for Multicast in Data Centre > Network Virtualisation Overlays (NVO3)”. > Will do. (As an aside, why do we have a "3" in the acronym when it doesn't appear anywhere in the expansion? I know it's kind of late to be asking that. :)) > > (2) Throughout: Please make sure you expand acronyms on first use, > throughout, e.g. mDNS in the Introduction. > > Will do. > (3) Section 3, first paragraph. > This references STT. It might be better to reference the encapsulations > that have been adopted by the working group (GUE, GENEVE, and VXLAN-GPE) > rather than an individual draft submission. > > I will add them. > (4) Section 3.4, last paragraph: > S/main/maintain > > Will fix. > (5) Section 9, References > You have split these into Normative and Informative references. However, > you draft is informational, so I am not sure it makes sense to have any > normative references. Further, you have included information documents such > as the NVO3 architecture as normative references. > This follows from what the guidance from the IESG: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html >>> Within an RFC, references to other documents fall into two general categories: "normative" and "informative". Normative references specify documents that must be read to _understand_ or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work. >>> Have the authors misinterpreted the IESG guidance? > Please also include the full draft reference and version you are > referencing (e.g. draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-03) rather than just the title of a > draft. > > Will do. (6) ID-Nits > Please can you run ID-Nits on the draft and clear any relevant errors and > warnings. > > Will do.
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
