Christer, Thank you very much for reviewing the draft and provided the comments. Please see below the reply to your questions.
-----Original Message----- From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:45 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 2017-10-04 IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-02 IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-12 Summary: The document is almost ready for publication, but there are a few issues that I'd like the authors to address. Major issues: N/A Minor issues: Q1: The Introduction says that the document "provides a framework". I guess it depends on how you define "framework", but to me it seems like the document only evaluates and discusses different mechanisms - which the text also says. [Linda] you are correct. The word *framework* is chosen (by WG) because the draft describes the “framework” of how to handing various multicast traffic. Nits/editorial comments: Q2: The Abstract says: "This document discusses a framework of supporting..." Assuming the document actually does provide a framework (see Q1), I would suggest to say "provides" (which you also use in the Introduction) instead of "discusses". [Linda] Okay, changed. Q3: The Introduction says: "Network virtualization using Overlays over Layer 3 (NVO3) is a Technology... " Please add a reference to RFC 7365 and/or RFC 8014 on the first occurrence of NVO3. [Linda] added. Q4: I don't think the last paragraph of the Introdution (Section 1) belongs to the Introduction. It should be in a terminology section. In addition, I don't think you need to say that "the user is assumed to be familiar with...". You should simply reference the RFCs for the terminology used in the document. [Linda] Okay, changed. Thank you very much. Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
