[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07

Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 23 May 2019 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A002C12014E; Thu, 23 May 2019 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <155864919758.8626.11137277913302380197@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 15:06:37 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/o8NDkKYA6oSGx1J_Lz3PGTmvzOg>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 22:06:38 -0000

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Has Issues


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: ddraft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
Reviewer: your-name
Review Date: date
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D

Summary: This document does not appear to be ready for publication as a
Proposed Standard RFC.

Major issues:
    The scoping of the BFD usage is unclear.  In places, this looks like it is
    intended to be used by the underlay service provider,  who will monitor the
    connectivity between VTEPs.  In other places it seems to be aimed at
    monitoring individual VNIs. This is made worse when the packet format is
    laid out.  The inner packet is an Ethernet Packet with an IP packet (with
    UDP, with BFD).  This means that it is a tenant packet.  The IP address is
    a tenant IP.  But the diagram shows this as being the IP address of the
    VTEP.  Which is not a tenant entity.
   There is further confusion as to whether the processing is driven by the VNI
   the packet arrived with, or the VNI is ignored.

Minor Issues:

Nits: N/A