Subject: [nvo3] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 19:24:26 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14: Discuss

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-geneve/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This will be trivial to address:

— Section 1.2 —

   The NVO3 framework [RFC7365] defines many of the concepts commonly
   used in network virtualization.

Indeed, and it seems a critical normative reference here.  So why is it in the informative section?

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

I support Ben’s DISCUSS and comments.  In addition:

— Section 3.3 —
In the description of the UDP Checksum, the first paragraph says the checksum
MUST be set for v6, then the second paragraph contradicts that.  You really
should note when the MUST is specified that there are exceptions.

— Section 3.5 —
In the description of the Type field, I believe it confuses things to say that
it’s 8 bits, and then to say that the first bit is not really part of the type,
but has a special meaning.  Why do you not show the C bit and Type field in the
main diagram as it is shown in the mini-figure, describe the C bit separately,
and define the Type field as 7 bits?