Subject: Document shepherd review and implementation check: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-05.txt

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:31:55 +0000

Hi,

I am the document shepherd for draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-05.txt.
As discussed at IETF 87, the authors of this draft have requested that it
be handled as an individual submission to the IESG. This is not the
product of an IETF working group. The draft has an intended status of
ŒExperimental', which I believe is appropriate.

I have reviewed that draft and found it to be clear and well written.
Since the draft is intended to document the current design of an existing,
implemented protocol, I do not have specific technical comments. I only
have minor or editorial comments, which I hope the authors will take into
consideration. Once these have been addressed, I will post a document
shepherd write up.

As a part of the Œdocument quality¹ section of the shepherd¹s write-up, I
also need to ask for any declarations that the protocol has been
implemented. Please let me know if you are aware of implementations.

Please direct any comments/discussion to the NVO3 list.

Best regards,

Matthew
--

Major Comments
==============
None

Minor comments
==============
I-D Nits:
----------
I-D nits throws up a number of issues. Please can you fix these. Here is
the output:

idnits 2.12.18 

tmp/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-05.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 15
     longer pages, the longest (page 1) being 61 lines

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

  ** There are 423 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 11 characters in excess of 72.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

  == Line 26 has weird spacing: '...t-Draft  is  s...'

  == Line 36 has weird spacing: '...     at  any  ...'

  == Line 39 has weird spacing: '...    The  list ...'

  == Line 113 has weird spacing: '....  This  is  n...'

  == Line 126 has weird spacing: '...    the  indiv...'

  == (38 more instances...)

  -- The document date (October 16, 2013) is 7 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

  == Missing Reference: 'ECMP' is mentioned on line 121, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4601' is defined on line 836, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5015' is defined on line 840, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4541' is defined on line 844, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

Author Count:
‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹
There are 8 authors listed at the top of the draft. Please reduce this to
fit within the RFC editor guideline of 5. One way to do this might be to
follow the example of other RFCs, with editors listed at the top, but
other authors include in the authors section of the document lower down
(see RFC6310 for an example).

Introduction, 3rd Para:
‹‹‹‹‹
   S/concomitant/common

Section 3.1, 1st Para:
‹‹‹‹‹
Add references to TRILL and SPB.

Section 3.2:
‹‹‹‹‹‹
s/multitenant/multi-tenant

Section 4.2, 3rd Para:
‹‹‹‹‹-
Missing reference to PIM-SM

Figure 1:
‹‹‹‹‹
The bit-alignment of some the fields is hard to read, and there is text
that appears to leak out of the fields on the left hand side. Please look
at reformatting this figure.

Figure 2:
‹‹‹‹‹
Same comment as for Figure 1.

Section 7:
‹‹‹‹‹‹
This section claims that VXLAN meets the requirements outlined in the NVO3
working group charter. You may want to qualify this by stating that this
draft is not a product of the NVO3 working group, and add an informational
reference to the NVO3 Gap Analysis draft (draft-ietf-nvo3-gap-analysis-00).

Section 9:
‹‹‹‹
Please be explicit as to the name of the registry that IANA has allocated
the value from. This is the ³Service Name and Transport Protocol Port
Number Registry².