Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-15: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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"

         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)?

Regards,
Rob