Early Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis-02
review-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis-02-rtgdir-early-halpern-2025-11-12-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis-02 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 02 (document currently at 02) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-12-05 | |
| Requested | 2025-11-06 | |
| Requested by | Matthew Bocci | |
| Authors | Mallik Mahalingam , Dinesh Dutt , Larry Kreeger , T. Sridhar , Ali Sajassi | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-02-11 (Latest revision 2025-11-03) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -02
by Joel M. Halpern
Genart Early review of -02 by Peter E. Yee |
|
| Comments |
This document is intended to take RFC7348 (VXLAN), which was originally published through the Independent Submission Editor, into the IETF stream, allowing the IETF to create a registry to make use of unused bits in the VXLAN header for new applications. VXLAN is very widely deployed and it is important not to impact those existing deployments. Please review from the perspective of the clarity of the specification, or any technical issues with the extensions/changes with respect to RFC7438. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joel M. Halpern |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/25_hIqvGrzSQat6MctdAC_VLlAw | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2025-11-12 |
review-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis-02-rtgdir-early-halpern-2025-11-12-00
This is a Routing Directorate (early) review as requested. Draft: draft-ietf-nvo3-rfc7348bis-02 Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 12-Nov-2025 Summary: Ready, with one major but easily addressed concern Major: I can not find any text describing whether there is any difference in the packet format or packet processing rules between this document and RFC7348. My guess is that there is no difference, and this document should say that (e.g. it could say "The format and processing described here are fully compatible with those in RFC 7348.) If there are changes, those should be described. Minor: N/A