Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-arch
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2016-08-12
Requested 2016-08-04
Authors David L. Black , Jon Hudson , Larry Kreeger , Marc Lasserre , Dr. Thomas Narten
I-D last updated 2016-08-12
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Takeshi Takahashi
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nvo3-arch-06-secdir-lc-takahashi-2016-08-12
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2016-08-12
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.

These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

[General summary]

This document is ready.

[Topic of this draft]

This informational document describes a high-level overview architecture for
building data center network viatualization overlay (NVO3) networks.

It breaks down the architecture and defines several components needed for
realizing the architecture, such as Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) and
Network Virtualization Authority (NVA).

[Minor Comment]

In Section 16 ‚ÄúSecurity Considerations‚ÄĚ, you could consider addressing the
policy enforcement issue you've discussed in Section 5.4.

The sentence starting with "Leakage of sensitive information" could be, for
instance, changed from " using encryption" to " using encryption and
ensuring policy enforcement".

[Editorial Comment]

In Page 9, there is a sentence "NVAs provide a service, and NVEs access that
service via an NVE-to-NVA protocol as discussed in Section 4.3."

This current sentence is fine, but referring Section 8 "NVE-to-NVA Protocol"
(instead of Section 4.3 "NVE State") could be better.

In Section 2, definition of "VLAN": "are used in this document denote a
C-VLAN", could be "are used in this document to denote a C-VLAN".

I enjoyed reading the draft.

Thank you.