Hi, David, On Sep 19, 2016 18:55, "Black, David" <david.bl...@dell.com> wrote: > > Hi Spencer, > > Thanks for the careful read. > > > I couldn't parse > > > > L3 VN to Legacy L2: This type of gateway forwards packets on between > > L3 VNs and legacy L2 networks such as VLANs or L2 VPNs. The > > MAC address in any frames forwarded between the legacy L2 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > network would be the MAC address of the gateway. > > ^^^^^^^ > > > > I could guess, but something is borked, and I'm not sure what is meant. > > Yes, it's definitely borked. Latter sentence rewritten to: > > The sender's destination MAC address in any frames that the gateway forwards from a legacy L2 network would be the MAC address of the gateway. > > The reverse direction case (gateway MAC is source MAC for frames forwarded to a legacy L2 network) can be inferred from that statement, so I haven't added text for that case. I did make corresponding wording changes to two other bullets - well, at least the borking was consistent ;-). > > > further down. > > > > I know what "hard" and "soft" errors are in my world, but I'm not sure > > what's meant here. > > That distinction is not important in this draft (e.g., it's not used elsewhere in the draft), so I removed it and combined the two bullets into: > > o Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X. > > > Is > > > > o Allow different protocols and architectures to be used to for > > ^^ ^^^ > > intra- vs. inter-NVA communication. > > > > just a typo, or is there something missing between "to" and "for"? > > Yes, it's just a typo I changed: "used to for" -> "used for" > > Thanks, --David
This all looks fine to me. Thanks for the quick response! Spencer > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:42 AM > > To: The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-nvo3-a...@ietf.org; Matthew Bocci; nvo3-cha...@ietf.org; > > matthew.bo...@alcatel-lucent.com; nvo3@ietf.org > > Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: (with > > COMMENT) > > > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I found a small number of nits that I couldn't error-correct while > > reading, but I'm especially interested in Suresh's Discuss on TTL > > decrementing. > > > > I couldn't parse > > > > L3 VN to Legacy L2: This type of gateway forwards packets on between > > L3 VNs and legacy L2 networks such as VLANs or L2 VPNs. The > > MAC address in any frames forwarded between the legacy L2 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > network would be the MAC address of the gateway. > > ^^^^^^^ > > > > I could guess, but something is borked, and I'm not sure what is meant. > > > > I'm having the same problem with > > > > L3 VN to L2 VN: This type of gateway forwards packets on between L3 > > VNs and L2 VNs. The MAC address in any frames forwarded > > between the L2 VN would be the MAC address of the gateway. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > further down. > > > > I know what "hard" and "soft" errors are in my world, but I'm not sure > > what's meant here. > > > > o Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X > > (soft error). > > > > o Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X > > (hard error). > > > > Are these clearly understood terms of art in NV03? If not, could you > > provide some parenthetical "i.e.", as you do for other items in the same > > list, or some reference if an appropriate reference exists? > > > > Is > > > > o Allow different protocols and architectures to be used to for > > ^^ ^^^ > > intra- vs. inter-NVA communication. > > > > just a typo, or is there something missing between "to" and "for"? > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
