Hi Greg, Thanks. Those changes look good.
Regards, Rob From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Sent: 26 October 2020 21:17 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bfd-vx...@ietf.org; bfd-cha...@ietf.org; rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-15: (with COMMENT) Hi Rob, thank you for your comments and apologies for the delay. I've uploaded the new version with the updates to address your comments: The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-16 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-16 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-16 Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:42 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Rob, thank you for your review and helpful comments. Please find my notes in-line below tagged GIM>>. I've attached the diff highlighting the changes applied and the new working version of the draft. Kind regards, Greg On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 5:59 AM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-15: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, This document seems pretty straight forward to me. A few, non blocking, comments: Assigning a single unicast MAC address seems slightly odd in that it isn't globally unique, but I can't think of any good alternative. At the same time, a service layer BFD session may be used between the tenants of VTEPs IP1 and IP2 to provide end-to-end fault management (this use case is outside the scope of this document). In such a case, for VTEPs BFD Control packets of that session are indistinguishable from data packets. "for VTEPs BFD Control" => "for VTEPS, the BFD Control" GIM>> Thank you. Accepted. Ethernet Header: 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. Source MAC: MAC address associated with the originating VTEP. Should the TypeOrLen field in the Ethernet header also be specified (presumably set to IPv4 or IPv6)? GIM>> Thank you for the suggestion. I've added the following: NEW TEXT: Ethertype: is set to 0x0800 if the inner IP header is IPv4, and is set to 0x86DD if the inner IP header is IPv6. Regards, Rob
