Hi Barry, Thanks for your response. We will refresh the draft as soon as we hear back from few other reviewers.
Regards, Ilango -----Original Message----- From: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 7:06 AM To: Ganga, Ilango S <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Matthew Bocci <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Martin Vigoureux <[email protected]>; T. Sridhar <[email protected]>; Jesse Gross <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi, Ilango , and thanks for your response. We're all good here, and I'll clear the DISCUSS when I see the updated reference. Barry On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:16 AM Ganga, Ilango S <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Barry, > > > > Thanks for your review of the document. Please see our responses to your > comments, inline below enclosed within <Response> </Response>. Let us know > if you are satisfied with the resolution. > > > > Regards, > > Ilango Ganga > > Geneve Editor > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 7:24 PM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Matthew Bocci > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: Discuss > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This will be trivial to address: > > > > — Section 1.2 — > > > > The NVO3 framework [RFC7365] defines many of the concepts commonly > > used in network virtualization. > > > > Indeed, and it seems a critical normative reference here. So why is it in > the informative section? > > > > IG>> <Response>. Agreed, we will move [RFC7365] to normative references > section. > > </Response> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I support Ben’s DISCUSS and comments. In addition: > > > > IG>> <Response> > > Please see our Response to Benjamin’s DISCUSS/comments (links below): > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/G37hH5brjYzYPQLHAfUr54_-Fwg > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Pt3TAucyhmeD9DGUvgcURme4zGs > > </Response> > > > > > > — Section 3.3 — > > In the description of the UDP Checksum, the first paragraph says the checksum > MUST be set for v6, then the second paragraph contradicts that. You really > should note when the MUST is specified that there are exceptions. > > > > IG>> <Response> For IPv6, Section 3.3 says, UDP checksum MUST be generated by > “default”, which implies that there are exceptions. We will add the following > sentence to refer to the exception mentioned in the second paragraph for > better clarity: > > > > “To protect the IP header, Geneve header, > > options and payload from potential data corruption, the UDP > > checksum MUST be generated by default as specified in [RFC0768] > > and [RFC2460] when Geneve is encapsulated in IPv6, except for certain > conditions outlined in the next paragraph.” > > </Response> > > > > > > — Section 3.5 — > > In the description of the Type field, I believe it confuses things to say > that it’s 8 bits, and then to say that the first bit is not really part of > the type, but has a special meaning. Why do you not show the C bit and Type > field in the main diagram as it is shown in the mini-figure, describe the C > bit separately, and define the Type field as 7 bits? > > > > IG>> <Response> The high order bit indicating critical options is an integral > part of the type field. Basically, indicates certain option types are > critical options. Hence we feel that it is best to leave it the way it is > defined. > > </Response> > > > > <End of Responses> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
