BFD over VXLAN vs. RFC 7348
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 19 August 2019 16:13 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5181200D7; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cbAkZciRC4Ud; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 724EC120096; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id p197so1820660lfa.2; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=G+hQ4/migxJhWO3KVoUerDan72hlxQ6cWITt6wLAz7g=; b=J/5Tjdd0N3K7kwAqe+BUc5Smb2EXbYc970Gq54O83nTz+yksABosg5Y5OlgFS8rs/d 8s83CPaCchQ6d75Gu7E8GXVyIGEBgJ44PVf5MfKCScuTswfSqtB6VN1fGpBRx7coce0v xAs2k6e+qlR6DMImvaj6/2Vbt8W54O4yuIx1J4dH9kJTUFvIIou0Ch7+t9EM22SkIsEG ze5WGBXgR2koJHy73P6W1st6SAAE9zkwc+2JA/v/ZW1T5foRJCwW+4jzW60Bt5o1XpcW F04ELxg2jlss1gy9LK7KN0yEsKmsWP3uGt4blggB3yJaCTG95KIhylU+5zUa1zv/g/yU EXqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=G+hQ4/migxJhWO3KVoUerDan72hlxQ6cWITt6wLAz7g=; b=oZ48o1h/VstCZfJ8TmwLFE+iIJZFFLwNV7gbv1Y12dKLDCefKcJ9cz1CLjaBNNi0nL x8K7uTV8jVXjxq71HDwwTJLwbu1HCOEIg05jIpcfP5JQf3xzdf7aBLsHx0Qpzv8dFtG1 lWpVwokldu1EcHNSIw6njWi55UJvI33i9+Aocga4/UqUf9vK2gJC/dXKxsig2PXIwS6g NujPvOZ7Pkxaxl1zHro8seyNUv19w3bn+u3qGE54If0RB5Hmy21Pi8ci98V9svVgoTMK 4m8xg+23RnrrkMBrtEMf/e6VaVq7PTZ+KdpcThglESuqViBVli43IuvODMhSy80jFEXZ HODw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVZtQbS1+wx3HKvcNZ0uIZNh68f1AiBPgslWc1jMGxrEO9o4LSh Bi+0YjO+D3BIGSRQRUctjCbMGVLJlo0/zRKJq20k3Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwoXfiK7Oy/7oxj+3clsSpWckA7wvuYuHrfUO4e8hLqYtdqHW4ChtmOmlrc+TAFRIDrBAGBBvFJvrLCpB/4euM=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:442f:: with SMTP id w15mr5004481lfl.9.1566231223200; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:13:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmV3JwOBFVSS4gwJ65Eat_hQcqMKKzN7x=9CXu=KPBBVFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: BFD over VXLAN vs. RFC 7348
To: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1f3d705907a9f50"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/RCgjSHyGmyqYeHviddTKHADn2Yw>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 16:13:47 -0000
Dear WG Chairs, et al., much appreciate your consideration and help to resolve one of the questions raised by reviewers from several directorates: RFC 7348 is Informational, should this specification be on the Informational track as well? In the course of the discussions, I've been pointing to previous cases at IETF when a base specification, e.g., IS-IS, was introduced on the Informational track but later it was used as the Normative reference and its extensions published as Standard track documents. Also, the recent updates that seem to be acceptable to Dinesh, Joel and Sridhar introduces the notion of the special VNI, Management VNI. Would that be considered as an update of RFC 7348? Much appreciate your thoughts, comments, and questions. Regards, Greg
- BFD over VXLAN vs. RFC 7348 Greg Mirsky