Hi Tony, thank you for the review, pointed questions, and helpful suggestions. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>. Also, the attached diff file highlights updates applied in the working version of the draft.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 2:50 PM Tony Li via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Tony Li > Review result: Has Nits > > OPSDIR Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-13 > > Reviewer: Tony Li > Status: > > Disclaimer: I am NOT a fan of Geneve and I will not attempt to hide my > disaffection for the underlying technoloyg. That said, I will try to > review this document on its own merits. > > Overall: Ready, with nits > > I found the document to be clear, concise and informative. It > accomplishes its goals. > > I found that the document left me wanting more: if there is a > connectivity problem within a VNI and a ping fails, then how do I > track down and isolate the fault? Ok, yes, this is beyond the scope of > the document, but it is somewhat cruel to leave the reader > hanging. Section 2.2 sets up two scenarios but then never resolves > them. Did Alfred Hitchcock contribute? > GIM>> Thank you for the question, Tony. Looking at other Geneve OAM documents, I propose the following update: OLD TEXT: The second case is when a test packet is transmitted using the VNI value associated with the monitored service flow. By doing that, the test packet experiences network treatment as the tenant's packets. Details of that use case are outside the scope of this specification. NEW TEXT: The second case is when a test packet is transmitted using the VNI value associated with the monitored service flow. By doing that, the test packet experiences network treatment as the tenant's packets. An example of the realization of that scenario is discussed in [RFC9521]. And I now have a question for you Should RFC 9521 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9521/> be used as Normative reference or it can remain the Informative? > > Details: > > Section 2.1: > > Requirement 5 is a bit unclear. What do you mean by 'express entropy'? > I think you mean something like: "There must be a way to encode entopy > information into the underlay forwarding scheme so that OAM packets > take the same dataflow paths as the transit traffic flows > GIM>> Thank you for the proposed text that is much better than the old version. To make it the requirement, I think that capitalization is in place: NEW TEXT: Requirement 5: There MUST be a way to encode entropy information into the underlay forwarding scheme so that OAM packets take the same dataflow paths as the transit traffic flows. > > Section 2.2.1: > > Nit: s/) ,/),/ > GIM>> Done.
<<< text/html; charset="US-ASCII"; name="draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-14.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list -- nvo3@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to nvo3-le...@ietf.org
