Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09
review-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-09-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-10-02
Requested 2017-09-18
Authors Anoop Ghanwani, Linda Dunbar, Mike McBride, Vinay Bannai, Ramki Krishnan
Draft last updated 2017-09-22
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Colin Perkins (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by Colin Perkins
Assignment Reviewer Tianran Zhou
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-09-22
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-09-22

Review
review-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-09-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-09-22

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This informational document discussed several methods to support multicast in NVO3. My major concern is that I did not see a clear *framework*, while the title seems to discuss this. The WG should have consensus on the scope and content.
However, I did not see any special operational or network management related issue. It's ready, but please consider the following nits.

1. It seems the expiration date setting is wrong. So line 44 and page header show the wrong information.

2. Line 139, ".." to "."

3. In section 1.1, "The NVEs can then trap ARP Request/ND Neighbor Solicitation messages from the TSs that are attached to it and respond to them, thereby eliminating the need to for broadcast/multicast of such messages."

Please expand the "TS" for it's first use, although I see an explanation in line 184.
And "it","them" here are not clear to me.
And "need to for" seems a nit.

4. Line 173, please expand the "MLD", or add an reference.

5. In section 3, "traffic between NVEs is transported using an encapsulation such as Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348,VXLAN-GPE]".
To me, VXLAN and VXLAN-GPE are different. So I suggest to say "Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] and the extension [VXLAN-GPE]".

6. Line 236, ", ," to ","

7. Line 274, "tradeoffs" to "trade-offs", so as to be identical in this document.

8. Line 392, ''' [RFC6513] "Multicast VPN" ''' to ''' "Multicast VPN"[RFC6513] '''

9. Line 438, "LAN Emulation (LANE)LANE" to "LAN Emulation (LANE)"

10. Line 439, expand "RP"

11. Line 536, "implementaion" to "implementation"

12. Line 560, "former's" to "former"

13. Line 591, "an intermediate node (router)" to "an intermediate node (e.g., router)"