Re: [nvo3] Extending WG LC for draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve by two weeks

[Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>]

 Hi,
- The abstract mentions point-to-point Geneve tunnels. Might be good to add "unicast"?
- I don't see it being spelled out that this is single-hop BFD, except the reference to RFC 5881 and setting TTL to 255. Might be good to be explicit. FWIW RFC 8971 isn't very explicit either...
- RFC 8926 mentions that a Geneve tunnel is unidirectional. Can demand mode be used?
- Section 4.1 "and use the same way to encapsulate data packets.". So a VAP is either IP or ethernet and both VAPs have to use same encaps. What if 1 is v4 and the other is v6? May need more details on this, either in section 1 or section 3.
- Section 5: "Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) field SHOULD be set to the VNI number that the originating VAP is mapped to.". OOC, why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? Specifically, why would it not be set to the VNI of the originating VAP? Section 4.1 mentions same VNI being used between the 2 VAPs.
- If there is a YANG model for VAPs (not covered in draft-ietf-nvo3-yang-cfg which has expired), I would like to see YANG for BFD over Geneve. Not sure whether new config is needed, but there will be new operational state (in Geneve and in BFD). Whether it's in the same doc or in a separate parallel doc is above my pay grade.
Regards,Reshad.
    On Friday, October 21, 2022, 05:37:22 AM EDT, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
  
NVO3 and BFD working groups,
 
  
 
To give more time to review and comment on this draft in the light of the draft submission deadline of 24th October, I am extending this WG last call to Friday 4th November 2022.
 
  
 
Please review and post any comments to the NVO3 list (including whether you support publication as an RFC).
 
  
 
Thanks
 
  
 
Matthew