Hi Éric, On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:45 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11: Abstain > > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > I am balloting an ABSTAIN because this document sits between two chairs > (French > saying). It is: > > - either the sheer output of the design team, then it has no WG/IETF > consensus, > meaning it must be an independent submission - or the output of the NVO3 WG, > meaning that it cannot really speak only about the design team (there are 16 > occurrences of "DT" in the draft and I did not count "design team").
Although this document started from DT output, it was processed through the WG and I will re-word it appropriately to so indicate. > See also my COMMENT about section 7 about the differences with > draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01 as recommendations have been added to the DT's ones. I believe this supports my point that this is not just DT output. > It would have been more useful to focus only on section 6, which is indeed an > interesting read. Thank you that section. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education). > > Special thanks to Matthew Bocci for the shepherd's detailed write-up including > the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status even if it > lacks the justification for the *publication stream*. > > Please note that Wassim Haddad is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my > request) and you may want to consider this int-dir review as well when it will > be available (no need to wait for it though): > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-encap/reviewrequest/18840/ I have responded to Wassim's review. > I hope that this review helps to improve the document and/or change its > stream, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # COMMENTS (non-blocking) > > ## Section 5.2 > > `similar to those noted for Geneve above` would benefit of further explanation > as the 'main' issue for Geneve is TLV encoding and this is not the case for > GUE, or are the GUE extensions also TLV encoded ? Then this may be worth > explaining. OK. > ## Section 6.1 > > Please explain why the absence of a Length field is important as it can > (probably) be computed from the header (counting TLV, ...) The draft does not actually say this is important. A length field enables a consistency check and provides a way to easily skip the encapsulation header. > ## Section 6.2 > > `Non-vendor specific TLVs` does it apply to all encapsulations or only to > Geneve ? All extensible encapsulations. It should perhaps say "non-vendor specific extensions' '. But the desirability of variable lengths argues in favor of TLVs/ > ## Section 6.5 > > Unsure what is meant by `The order of the extension headers should be hardware > friendly` ? I.e., how can a designer check whether an order is HW friendly? I believe the text gives the example of certain header extensions appearing early in the header sequence. Since this might depend on the specific target NVE or transit devices, I think the point is that the ordering of extensions should be dynamically determined. > ## Section 7 > > There are many additional recommendations that are *not* part of the original > DT recommendations draft-dt-nvo3-encap-01. I.e., this seems more like a WG > considerations rather than a design team considerations. OK. The document will be appropriately re-worded as it is WG output. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
