A Widely Deployed Solution to the Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Fragmentation Problem
RFC 7588

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -03)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-05-09 for -04)
No email
send info
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
OPS-DIR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2015-05-14)
No email
send info
Thank you for adding text on fragmentation attacks.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -03)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-05-14 for -04)
No email
send info
I agree that adding a para in response to Kathleen's discuss is a good plan.

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info