Hi Anoop,
Thank you for the kind reminder.
Yes, I've noticed there are two places (one in section 4, another in section 5)
that need to be changed.
Your new text looks better.
Thanks,
Xiao Min
Original
From: AnoopGhanwani <[email protected]>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2022年10月18日 23:24
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Working Group Last Call and IPR Poll for
draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve
Hi Xiao Min,
Just to be clear, there are 2 instances of this that need to be changed. And
if you're using the text verbatim then please use this modified version:
"Opt Len field MUST be set consistent with the Geneve specification [RFC 8926]
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 Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 5:55 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Anoop,
Thanks for your support.
Please see inline...
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: AnoopGhanwani <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2022年10月18日 02:36
Subject: Re: [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
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."
[XM]>>> This clarification looks fine to me. Will incorporate it into the next
revision.
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
