Telechat Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-15
review-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-15-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2018-02-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-02-20
Requested 2018-01-31
Authors Li Yizhou, Donald Eastlake, Larry Kreeger, Thomas Narten, David Black
Draft last updated 2018-02-17
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -13 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -15 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott Bradner
State Completed
Review review-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-15-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2018-02-17
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 17)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2018-02-17

Review
review-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-15-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2018-02-17

This is an OPD-DIR review of Split Network Virtualization Edge (Split-NVE) Control Plane Requirements (draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-15) 
This ID describes the requirements that should be met by the technology defined in one or more technical specifications to implement, in this case, control plane protocols for use in a split network virtualization system, and thus, by definition, can not have any direct impacts on the operation of networks.  Technology specification(s) that meet these requirements might have such impacts.
That said, some notes
----
section 1 .1 says
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and RFC 8174 [RFC8174].

but RFC 8174 says the text should read as follows if the authors are following the guidance in RFC 8147

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

if the authors are not following that guidance  I would think that the original RFC 2119 wording should be used 

----
the 3rd pp of section 2.2 says "
The migrating VM should not be in Running state at the same time on the source hypervisor and destination hypervisor during migration

the pp goes on to say that it could happen

I may be missing something but this puzzles me a bit - I would think that the state of the results of the operation of the VM (e.g. database updates) would be indeterminable if both VMs are running at the same time without some sort of lockout -maybe this should be MUST NOT?

 ----
the 4th pp in section 3.1 states that "the external NVE MUST be notified ... when it no longer requires connection" - what happens if the software on the device needing the connection hangs - how is the notification done?


---
section 3 of the ID contains some things that appear to be requirements (i.e., include MUST etc) and some things that appear to be descriptive - without calling out the actual requirements as is done in section 4 it will be hard for the technology specification developers to know what requirements they need to meet -if section 4 is a comprehensive list of requirements then it would seem to be a good idea to avoid 2119 type capitalization in section 3 - if not I would expect missed requiements