Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-12: Discuss
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for raft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-12 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Matthew Bocci for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to Don Eastlake, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-12-intdir-telechat-eastlake-2023-08-05/ Don's review was 'not ready', and I concur with him after doing my own review. Authors' reply to Don's review will be welcome. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # DISCUSS As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ## Sectin 6 I share Don's issue about having `Geneve provides security` and `Geneve does not have any inherent security mechanisms` in the same paragraph. There should probably some nuance or limitation in those two assertions to make them compatible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # COMMENTS ## Section 1 Unsure whether the following text is useful here `The major difference between Geneve and VXLAN [RFC7348] is that Geneve supports multi-protocol payload and variable length options.` I trust the transport ADs for the accuracy of the last paragraph about the congestion control. ## Section 4.1 `the BFD session SHOULD be identified using`, what is the procedure to be followed when it is not possible? The I-D should be clear on this. ## Section 5;1 `MUST be validated to determine` how can the receiving node validate ? Of course, the reader can guess, but let's be specific. What should the receiving node do if this validation fails ? ## Section 6 Suggest to specify what "enough" means in ` are enough for the pair of NVEs`. # NITS ## Section 1 s/an other device/another device/ s/p2p Geneve tunnel/P2P Geneve tunnel/ or expand `p2p` _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
