Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-15: 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-hpvr2nve-cp-req/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive Comments: §1.2: It would be helpful to see the TSI labeled in the figures. §6: Are there requirements for the tenant system to ensure that it is connecting to the correct nNVE? Editorial Comments and Nits: §1: Please expand tNVE and nNVE §6: "... that any hypervisor wishing to use the services of an NVE are properly authorized..." plural disagreement (s/ are / is §7: IANA (weakly) recommends that the IANA section be retained even when empty. (It's still the authors' call.) §9: "merger from the drafts" s/from/of _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
