Subject: [nvo3] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14

From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:16:00 -0800

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Ready

This is an OPS-DIR review of Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization
Encapsulation This ID proposes a new control plane agnostic tunneling protocol
primarily for network virtualization related applications.

While the document does not have a specific operational considerations section
it is a very well written document that clearly explains the issues with and
features of the proposal which includes most of the operations related
considerations. I did not see any such issues that the document did not already
deal with.

I do have one question – why, in section 4.3.1 (5) is this not a MUST

---

From: "Ganga, Ilango S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:56:36 +0000

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your review. Please see the response below. 

Regards,
Ilango Ganga
Geneve Editor

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 12:16 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Ready

This is an OPS-DIR review of Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation This ID proposes a new control plane agnostic tunneling protocol primarily for network virtualization related applications.

While the document does not have a specific operational considerations section it is a very well written document that clearly explains the issues with and features of the proposal which includes most of the operations related considerations. I did not see any such issues that the document did not already deal with.

I do have one question – why, in section 4.3.1 (5) is this not a MUST
      <Response> We have followed the same precedence as other UDP encapsulation protocols RFC 8086 and RFC 7510 in defining this requirement. </>