Subject: [Int-area] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 09:41:08 -0700

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04: 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-intarea-gre-mtu/

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

from Tom Taylor's opsdir review (looks like it's being addressed
already)

My apologies -- I let this slip way past due date. This is a review of
operational aspects of this document, primarily for use by the OPS area
ADs in their evaluation of the document.

Summary: this document describes a commonly encountered set of
implemented procedures for handling fragmentation of GRE packets. The
described procedures include configuration options. The document is
well-written and ready to go subject to the following observations, all
of which are trivial except for the second minor issue noted below.

Tom Taylor

1) Very minor issue: there is no advice to the operator on coordinating
the configuration of the ingress and egress nodes. Section 3.3.2 assumes
that configuration is coordinated (i.e., fragmented GRE delivery packets
are reassembled at egress). Section 3.4 simply presents the option. This
could be fixed by changing the relevant sentence of 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2
as follows:

OLD
   If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE
   egress.

NEW
   If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE
   egress if the latter is configured to do so.

2) Minor issue: 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3 final paragraph:
   s/delivery header/delivery packet/

Typos:

Last paragraph before Sec. 3, second line: s/lager/larger/

3.3.1.1 second paragraph, last line on page 5:
    s/an Next-hop MTU/a Next-Hop MTU value/

3.3.1.2 first line: s/send/sends/

Sec. 5 last paragraph, fourth last line: s/includes/include/

_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 18:34:32 +0000

Joel,

Thanks!

Tom Taylor’s review (of -03) was already addressed in -04.
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt>

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> On May 9, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:
>