Hi Matthew, Thanks for the clarification. We have submitted -05 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-05 to address your comments.
Let us know if it looks good to proceed. Thanks, Anoop On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < [email protected]> wrote: > Anoop > > The ‘3’ in NVO3 comes from the original title we used during the BoF, > which was 'Network Virtualization over Layer 3’. The ‘3’ then subesequently > stuck. > > Regards > > Matthew > > > > From: <[email protected]> on behalf of EXT Anoop Ghanwani < > [email protected]> > Date: Friday, 6 May 2016 at 01:19 > To: Matthew Bocci <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, Benson Schliesser < > [email protected]>, NVO3 <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Document shepherd comments on > draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-04 > > 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
