HI Lucy, On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Yes, I think so, since this is use-cases and the WG is heading in that direction. You could have it be "a standardized NVO3 encapsulation", if you prefer. > 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]> wrote: > > *Hi Alia,* > > > > *Please see inline below.* > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 21, 2016 2:32 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [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. **L**)* > > > > 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
