Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the discussions around my discuss point, and the ensuing changes resulting from the discussions! My apologies that I was tardy in re-reviewing after the updates were made. I think the core issues have been resolved, but do have a couple comments on the -14: Section 3 says: Separate BFD sessions can be established between the VTEPs (IP1 and IP2) for monitoring each of the VXLAN tunnels (VNI 100 and 200). Using a BFD session to monitor a set of VXLAN VNIs between the same pair of VTEPs might help to detect and localize problems caused by misconfiguration. An implementation that supports this specification MUST be able to control the number of BFD sessions that can be created between the same pair of VTEPs. [...] While the first two sentences are probably true, they are arguably out of scope for this document, since Section 6 says that BFD control packets on non-management VNI is outside the scope of this specification. The third sentence is quite surprising in the context of this document only defining BFD for the management VNI, since multiple BFD sessions on the same VNI seem redundant. Section 5 Destination MAC: A Management VNI, which does not have any tenants, will have no dedicated MAC address for decapsulated traffic. The value [TBD1] SHOULD be used in this field. While this normative language seems like the appropriate level of stringency, I do find myself wondering what other value might be used and why. (This, of course, need not be answered in the document, though it could be if the answer is known and useful.)
