Reviewer: Charles Perkins Review result: Almost Ready 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.
