Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-intarea-gue
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2019-02-15
Requested 2019-01-29
Requested by Suresh Krishnan
Authors Tom Herbert , Lucy Yong , Osama Zia
I-D last updated 2019-02-28
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -06 by Charles E. Perkins (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -07 by David L. Black (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Charles E. Perkins
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-intarea-gue by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 09)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2019-02-28
This document needs an applicability statement which includes the assumptions
and the reasons it might be useful.  Deliverability needs to be expanded. 
Reasons why middleboxes would be unlikely inspect GUE fields might be included.

For instance, the discussion in second paragraph of 5.11.1 belongs in the
applicability statement.

It should also be explained why arbitrary GUE extensions are less likely to be
filtered out compared to IPv6 destination options.
The document assumes close familiarity with deployment scenarios that seem to
be characterized by acronyms such as RSS, aRFS, TSO, LRO, etc.  While I am
pretty familiar with a lot of encapsulation techniques, I had to study the
meaning of these acronyms.  If it is intended to effectively restrict the
intended audience, that is O.K., but otherwise more background is needed along
with relevant citations.
[GUEEXTENS] is cited in a way that places a normative dependency on
[GUEEXTENS].  So, [GUEEXTENS] belongs in the Normative References.
I have a large number of specific comments which I will post shortly in the
form of a rfcdiff-generated file.