Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with COMMENT)

Greg Mirsky <> Wed, 18 December 2019 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F3712091B; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:11:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T6TFiQYXRwO1; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:11:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BF021201DB; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:10:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j26so2964534ljc.12; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:10:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZimkUHEfy0gELnT3MyqgO8H3c2G3LvARzwf1YYHKjOs=; b=YUlnYZFpEJzQXntDyde8AhngzAkf58EUy9/QcusDrK6+cRYwkZf3IKlzaUHxE+Q7Cb 0r2MPLxbIZB2ALheHoHw188r58WlZHezXTLgeLDyL+Fzsw2/Ej0NYWpV36KsfNqS4xg7 4CFcHz23Fj1LawiRxj0DUaSJ0LOJVyogc0rxd/uwRlDX5oNpPEuZTEIhCVQrx44ayblC RaZrsVJTcKS77OyCp02hg/3c0ztew/jNw4nJPCWNjex0ucGI0LotgGPfNSSO1Uhge0xG TzUBQLk+e0VGIFt2DOxy9SIa+vPGkOJ6OcIeqBKOQnusRAvqN8vQRUvLzb69Al2rQs03 MOWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZimkUHEfy0gELnT3MyqgO8H3c2G3LvARzwf1YYHKjOs=; b=JPrOgsG3WPk0OBl+9QQsEPDKOgQ8R4oITn4bojrhDmVZ4qMP+yyBT2TsGOdB+Am+cA 37WPdgUWSpel9/fsX/nrZ5pmjso5UyhD+CqzPdlAy5LT8wv6RNiPOj5duGXSlRPTea3i xOAPGXkkMlc49VAjU5KKYZLcm2/Iq37NOjqljd+YagXvGy1CxEITE8eYABiI33+C6RBt wF5KeFRBP8bf4mKAqSv2uyvUlLd0y4AJbei/BysLB9sAXT3tsfqhd2GopMWAzl/iQyDD JQkS28c+6PQFT7pRBf8Apb7ddQUDRb6TiHBjMbkEKynNeCSOUJGl6nIMAV4CUnH2+xeU 8Btg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWxLq69HiCUNbNSRaCAis4xi1GDYU66u4U/YL2Gdx9iIGTjey/v O4do6sYjN6+XRZAOukLUxYf2EmNmafCP6m2UVQA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx6+YmZ8zVwqqh1+gw/RDXy9k6ajPSSlXupaeYgAXFOWC23UuuOT0OXNyKReiEX3r15Ma6Xe31IMydq2dPtP9Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:918c:: with SMTP id f12mr2597357ljg.66.1576689056028; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:10:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:10:45 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with COMMENT)
To: Barry Leiba <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Jeffrey Haas <>,, rtg-bfd WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000001b42470599fd8745"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:42:23 -0800
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:11:05 -0000

Hi Barry,
thank you for your review, comments, and suggestions. Please find my
answers in-line below under GIM>> tag.
Attached, please find the diff attached (apologies that it includes also
updates to several other reviews).

Best regards,

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 9:39 PM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <> wrote:

> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I support Ben’s DISCUSS.  In addition, I have a number of editorial
> comments.
> General: there are a lot of missing or incorrect articles, making the
> document
> harder to read than it should be.  It would be good to fix that.  If you
> let
> the RFC Editor fix it, it will require careful review during AUTH48 to make
> sure it’s correct.
> — Abstract —
> The phrase “forming up” is odd; I suggest just “forming”.
GIM>> It was suggested to s/forming up/used to form/. Do you think it reads

> — Section 3 —
>    BFD packets intended for a VTEP MUST
>    NOT be forwarded to a VM as a VM may drop BFD packets leading to a
>    false negative.
> This needs two commas: one before “as” and one before “leading”.  And what
> does
> “leading to a false negative” mean here?  I don’t understand.
GIM>> Thank you for your suggestion to improve the text. If BFD Control
packets are not processed at the egress BFD system, even though the VXLAN
tunnel is operational, the state of the session will be changed to Down
once the Detection timer expires. We consider that such failure
notification is "false" as it does not indicate a failure of the monitored
VXLAN tunnel but something else, perhaps misconfiguration or an
implementation problem.

>    It is RECOMMENDED to allow
>    addresses from the loopback range through a firewall only if it is
>    used as the destination IP address in the inner IP header, and the
>    destination UDP port is set to 3784 [RFC5881].
> I THINK the antecedent for “it” is meant to be “addresses from the loopback
> range”, though because of the number mismatch it looks like the antecedent
> is
> “a firewall”.  One fix is to change “addresses” to “an address”,
> correcting the
> number error, but that leaves the ambiguity.  Maybe betterto make it “only
> if
> they are used as destination IP addresses”.  Also, remove the comma.

> That fixes the sentence as written, but I also agree with Ben’s comment
> that
> this might need more significant rewording.
GIM>> Thank you for your thorough consideration of the text and your
thoughtful suggestion. I've followed the second of your suggested changes.
Will work on improving the text with Ben.

> — Section 4 —
>    BFD packet MUST be encapsulated and sent to a remote VTEP as
>    explained in this section.
> This needs to be either “A BFD packet” or “BFD packets” and “VTEPs”.
GIM>>  I've followed the second option as the next sentence uses the plural

>          The MAC address MAY be
>          configured, or it MAY be learned via a control plane protocol.
> Are those the only two choices?  As both “MAY” are optional, as written it
> allows for others.  I suggest not using BCP 14 key words here, and instead
> saying, “The MAC address is either configured or learned via a control
> plane
> protocol.”
GIM>> I agree.

>          This
>          addresses the scenario when the inner IP destination address is
>          of VXLAN gateway and there is a router in underlay which
>          removes the VXLAN header, then it is possible to route the
>          packet as VXLAN  gateway address is routable address.
> This sentence is too fractured for me to make any sense of it, so I can’t
> suggest a fix.  Please fix it.  It looks like Ben made more sense of it
> than I
> could, so maybe his suggestion will work.
GIM>> I agree. I'll update the passage while discussing Ben's comments.

> — Section 5 —
>    received VXLAN packet MUST follow the procedures described in
>    Section 4.1 [RFC7348].
> This needs to say “Section 4.1 of [RFC7348].”
GIM>> Accepted, done.