Jeff, Sorry for delayed response. I was on vacation and returned today and trying to catch up with discussion here. Please see my inline response [SPK].
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:23 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > Santosh, > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:24:06PM +0530, Santosh P K wrote: > > "As per section 4 inner destination IP address MAY be set to 127/8 > address. > > There could be firewall configured on VTEP to block 127/8 address range > if > > set as destination IP in inner IP header. It is recommended to allow > 127/8 > > range address through firewall only if inner IP header's destination IP > is > > set to 127/8 IP address." > > Would it be reasonable to suggest "SHOULD be set"? > Our motivation in this section is to offer what is likely to be a > reasonable > default, without providing restriction from something more amenable to some > provider's requirement. > [SPK] Agreed. I will take a look at updated version and we can change these wordings. > > Similarly, based on this text, we'll get asked about "recommended" vs. > "RECOMMENDED". What level of strength do you think we should have here? > [SPK] Agreed. Will change it. > > > -- Jeff >
