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

Jeffrey Haas <> Tue, 10 December 2019 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C346F1200DB; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:34:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HBftg0w4hFYd; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6C3120024; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:34:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EB71A1E2F5; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:38:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:38:23 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: Mirja =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,
Subject: Re: Mirja =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind'?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?s?= No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with COMMENT)
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:34:08 -0000


On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 04:38:30AM -0800, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote:
> This document describes the use of BFD in VXLAN, however, it does not specify
> any new protocol elements or extension. Therefore I would expect such a
> document to be informational. The shepherd write-up doesn't give any additional
> information about why this doc is PS.

The chairs did ask Martin to enquire from the IESG what level of standards
this document should target.  We realize that the base vxlan spec (oddly) is
Informational, however we were encouraged at multiple points to go for
Proposed standard.

Martin theoretically enquired of the IESG, but got no answer.  We were told
on November 6 to go ahead with Proposed.

The BFD Working Group is ambivalent about the level of standard for this
document.  My request is that the IESG provide some level of consistent
guidance here rather than your single comment. :-)

I leave it to our AD, Martin, to summarize back the final status of your
collective deliberations and we shall update the document accordingly.

-- Jeff