Hi Alia, Got them. Thx.
One more thought on the following: For the servers equipped with Hypervisor-based virtual switches, some may support the standardized NVO3 encapsulation, some may not support any encapsulation, and some may support documented (e.g. VxLAN [RFC7348], NVGRE [RFC7637], etc.) or proprietary encapsulations. Since we don’t have a standardized NVO3 encapsulation now, is it proper to state it? Maybe just put a note to state that VXLAN and NVGRE were published as informational document; neither is standardized NVO3 encapsulation protocol at the original text. Regards, Lucy From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 4:26 PM To: Lucy yong Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-14 Hi Lucy, On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Alia, Please see inline below. From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 2:32 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-14 [resend with subject] As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-14. First, I would like to thank the authors - Lucy, Linda, Mehmet, Aldrin, & Vishwas - for their work on this document. It has noticeably improved since the last time I reviewed it. [Lucy] Thank you for the comments. As part of my review, I do have a few minor comments below that I would like to see addressed. I am going to assume that the authors will be responsive and request an IETF Last Call now - and schedule this document for the Jan 19 IESG telechat. I have also requested a Routing Directorate review. [Lucy] See my response on your comments below. I am a bit confuse on the second sentence above, do you mean that we as authors need to request an IETF Last Call now? if yes, how to do that? [Alia] I have already requested IETF Last Call. Minor: 1) Sec 1: "Independent address spaces in individual NVO3 networks such as MAC, IP, TCP/UDP etc." I have no idea what you mean by TCP/UDP being an independent address space. Please either clarify or remove it. [Lucy] Good catch. We should remove TCP/UDP from the list. (don’t know why it was there. ☹) 2) Sec 2:"It also means that the nodes in the infrastructure network (except tunnel end point nodes) carry encapsulated NVO3 traffic but not aware of the existence of NVO3 networks." From discussions on the NVO3 encapsulation, there seem to be some perspectives that nodes in the infrastructure network may have reasons (OAM, etc) to be aware of the NVO3 networks. Can you tone this down to the following? "It also means that the nodes in the infrastructure network (except tunnel end point nodes) carry encapsulated NVO3 traffic but are not responsible for decapsulating or encapsulating NVO3 traffic." [Lucy] Accept you comment, but the first part and second part in your sentence seem redundant. How about: It also means that the nodes in the infratructure network treats NVO3 packets as of an IP packet from a host. Or just remove orignal sentence? [Alia] I see your point. Perhaps removing the sentence is best. I haven't seen enough discussion on the mailing list to propose a more detailed suggestion & I don't think the sentence adds noticeably to the document's meaning. Regards, Alia 3) Sec 4.1:"For the servers equipped with Hypervisor-based virtual switches, some may support VxLAN [RFC7348] encapsulation, some may support NVGRE encapsulation [RFC7637], and some may not support any encapsulation." This should at least mention the existence of the NVO3 encapsulation and indicate that VxLAN and NVGRE are not standards. For instance: "For the servers equipped with Hypervisor-based virtual switches, some may support the standardized NVO3 encapsulation, some may not support any encapsulation, and some may support documented (e.g. VxLAN [RFC7348], NVGRE [RFC7637], etc.) or proprietary encapsulations." [Lucy] Good suggestion. I will replace it with your words. Nits: i) Sec 2: "It also means that the nodes in the infrastructure network (except tunnel end point nodes) carry encapsulated NVO3 traffic but not aware of the existence of NVO3 networks." Should be "...but are not aware..." [Lucy] Thx. the sentence will be replaced according to your comments. Thanks, Lucy Thanks, Alia
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
