I read the draft and support publication as an RFC.
One clarification which I think would be helpful.
What is the motivation for the following:
>>>
Opt Len field SHOULD be set to 0, which indicates there isn't any
variable length option.
>>>
Obviously if there are no options then it is set to 0. But if there are
options present then it needs to be set according to that. For example, if
I am running INT over Geneve and I want to have INT headers with the BFD
frame, then this would need to be non-zero. Would it be more accurate to
say:
"Opt Len field MUST be set consistent with the Geneve spec depending on
whether or not options are present in the frame. The use of Geneve options
with BFD is beyond the scope of this specification."
Thanks,
Anoop
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 6:56 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ------------------Original------------------
> From: Bocci,Matthew(Nokia-GB) <[email protected]>
> To: NVO3 <[email protected]>;
> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <[email protected]>;
> Date: 2022年10月06日 18:30
> Subject: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
> draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
> This email begins a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-07 (draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-07 - BFD for
> Geneve).
> 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 an informational 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 no 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 14th October 2022.
> 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
