Subject: [nvo3] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 06:41:38 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found a small number of nits that I couldn't error-correct while
reading, but I'm especially interested in Suresh's Discuss on TTL
decrementing.

I couldn't parse 

   L3 VN to Legacy L2:  This type of gateway forwards packets on between
         L3 VNs and legacy L2 networks such as VLANs or L2 VPNs.  The
         MAC address in any frames forwarded between the legacy L2
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         network would be the MAC address of the gateway.
         ^^^^^^^
         
I could guess, but something is borked, and I'm not sure what is meant.

I'm having the same problem with 

   L3 VN to L2 VN:  This type of gateway forwards packets on between L3
         VNs and L2 VNs.  The MAC address in any frames forwarded
         between the L2 VN would be the MAC address of the gateway.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         
further down.

I know what "hard" and "soft" errors are in my world, but I'm not sure
what's meant here. 

   o  Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X
      (soft error).

   o  Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X
      (hard error).
      
Are these clearly understood terms of art in NV03? If not, could you
provide some parenthetical "i.e.", as you do for other items in the same
list, or some reference if an appropriate reference exists?

Is

   o  Allow different protocols and architectures to be used to for
                                                             ^^ ^^^
      intra- vs. inter-NVA communication.  
      
just a typo, or is there something missing between "to" and "for"?

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:55:10 +0000

Hi Spencer,

Thanks for the careful read.

>          MAC address in any frames forwarded between the legacy L2

Yes, it's definitely borked.  Latter sentence rewritten to:

   The sender's destination MAC address in any frames that the gateway forwards from a legacy L2 network would be the MAC address of the gateway.

The reverse direction case (gateway MAC is source MAC for frames forwarded to a legacy L2 network) can be inferred from that statement, so I haven't added text for that case.  I did make corresponding wording changes to two other bullets  - well, at least the borking was consistent  ;-).

> I know what "hard" and "soft" errors are in my world, but I'm not sure

That distinction is not important in this draft (e.g., it's not used elsewhere in the draft), so I removed it and combined the two bullets into:

  o  Delivered to correct NVE, but could not deliver packet to TS-X.

> just a typo, or is there something missing between "to" and "for"?

Yes, it's just a typo I changed: "used to for" -> "used for"

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:42 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; Matthew Bocci; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-07: (with
> COMMENT)
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:53:58 -0500

Hi, David,

On Sep 19, 2016 18:55, "Black, David" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>    The sender's destination MAC address in any frames that the gateway
forwards from a legacy L2 network would be the MAC address of the gateway.
>
> The reverse direction case (gateway MAC is source MAC for frames
forwarded to a legacy L2 network) can be inferred from that statement, so I
haven't added text for that case.  I did make corresponding wording changes
to two other bullets  - well, at least the borking was consistent  ;-).
> That distinction is not important in this draft (e.g., it's not used
> Yes, it's just a typo I changed: "used to for" -> "used for"

This all looks fine to me. Thanks for the quick response!

Spencer

> > Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html