Dear All,
I am concerned that the current definition of O-bit contradicts the
definition of the Protocol Type field. Consider that O-bit defined as:
O (1 bit): OAM packet. This packet contains a control message
instead of a data payload.
My interpretation, please correct me if it is wrong, is that the O-bit
indicates that a message that immediately follows the Geneve header is
OAM command or data. But that is what the Protocol Type field is for:
Protocol Type (16 bits): The type of the protocol data unit
appearing after the Geneve header.
What is the precedence processing O-bit and the Protocol Type values?
Should the specification explain how to interpret the value of the Protocol
type field when O-bit is set? If the value of the Protocol Type field is
equivalent to None, i.e., no message following the Geneve header, can O-bit
be set to indicate that one of TLVs includes OAM? If that is the valid
case, then the current definition of O-bit is not complete as it does not
mention OAM in TLV case.
And I have to point to an overall lack of discussion of OAM in the
specification.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:08 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <
[email protected]> wrote:
> This email begins a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-08.txt.
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working group
> list. If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no comments
> and believe it is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, please
> also indicate so to the WG email list.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
> all the Authors and Contributors.
>
> Currently there are two IPR disclosures against this document.
>
> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>
>
> This poll will run until Friday 26th October.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew and Sam
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
