Hi David, greatly appreciate your consideration of draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-01. If you have comments, any questions, suggestions please share them and we'll work to address them in timely manner.
Regards, Greg On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alia, > > > > > I will optimistically send this document to IETF Last Call - but the > authors do need to update this section and respond to my other concerns. > > > > Thanks for doing this. Regarding your Major concern: > > > > > i) I note that draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-03 expired > about 3 years ago. Section 12 basically says that > > > OAM is important and punts to this draft. I believe that you will need > more details. > > > > Would it be acceptable to provide a little bit more in the way of details > and then point to draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-01 ? > > It seems preferable to have overlay OAM requirements discussions in the > context of that draft rather than this NVO3 architecture draft. > > > > For your first minor concern: > > > > > 1) Please add C-VID to the terminology. It is used without context > in 3.1.1. > > > > I think we should rewrite that sentence to just eliminate the C-VID > acronym, e.g., > > > > OLD > > Note that the handling of C-VIDs has additional complications, as > > described in Section 4.2.1 below. > > NEW > > Note that there are additional considerations when VLAN tags are used to > > identify both the VN and a Tenant System VLAN within that VN, > > as described in Section 4.2.1 below. > > > > Everything else appears to be useful editorial suggestions. > > > > Thanks, --David > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 6:14 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06 > > > > First, I would like to thank the authors, David, Jon, Larry, Marc, and > Thomas, for their work on this draft and pushing it to completion. > > > > As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06 > before progressing it. I do apologize for the delay in my review; I had a > lot of documents show up quite quickly this winter and spring. > > > > My primary concern is around the operational and management > considerations. My detailed review is below. I will optimistically send > this document to IETF Last Call - but the authors do need to update this > section and respond to my other concerns. If they are timely, then this > can make it onto the IESG telechat on August 18. > > > > Major: > > > > i) I note that draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-03 expired > about 3 years ago. Section 12 basically says that OAM is important and > punts to this draft. I believe that you will need more details. > > > > Minor: > > > > 1) Please add C-VID to the terminology. It is used without context in > 3.1.1. > > > > 2)In Sec 4.1: "While there may be APIs between the NVE and hypervisor > to support necessary interaction, the details of such an API are not > in-scope for the IETF to work on." > > Could this be softened to "not specifically in-scope for the NVO3 WG to > work on"? If there were agreement that the NVE and hypervisors need > interoperability, I could see APIs being in scope. > > > > 3) It looks like work on draft-ietf-nvo3-dataplane-requirements-03 has > been abandoned (which is fine). Please remove the reference. > > > > > > Nits: > > > a) In Sec 3.4, it says "in use today". Replace with "in use in 2016" or > the like - since the RFC will live for a long time and not be updated with > "today" systems. > > > > Regards & Thanks, > > Alia > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
