BFD for Geneve
draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13

Thanks for the updates!

Thank you to Carl Wallace for the SECDIR review.

** Section 6   
   The BFD
   introduces no security vulnerabilities when run in this manner.
   Considering Geneve does not have any inherent security mechanisms,
   BFD authentication as specified in [RFC5880] is recommended to be
   utilized.
  
Consider if a normative “RECOMMENDED” is appropriate for encouraging the use of BFD authentication.

I'd like to thank Sheng Jiang for the OpsDir review -- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-11-opsdir-lc-jiang-2023-07-11/

Other than supporting John and Eric's DISCUSS, and also thinking that Zahed's comment is more of a discuss, I don't have anything to add...

Thanks for working on this specification. Special thanks to Magnus Westerlund for identifying an important aspect in his TSVART review and I am happy to see the resolution in the -11 version of this doc.

I have stumbled upon similar clarification issues that John has brought up in his discuss. It not clear to me how this validation need to be done as written in Section 5.1 

     Then the UDP destination port and the TTL or Hop Limit of the inner IP packet MUST be validated to determine whether the received packet can be processed by BFD.

I was expecting pointers for those validation mechanism special to BFD. Can we be more clear on this?

Thanks for addressing my previous blocking DISCUSS ballot at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/gZrWMNTBpJEUzrR9uv74eaAQFoE/

The -13 also implements suggestions to improve the text. Very much appreciated.

Regards

-éric

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-12

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Paul Kyzivat for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qhzwtKgxklVyNtwYV_BDFkZLx4E).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### "Table of Contents", paragraph 1
```
 (Network Virtualization Edge) or an other device acting as a Geneve tunnel
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 1, paragraph 2
```
FC7348] is that Geneve supports multi-protocol payload and variable length op
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
 words, an outer IPv6 header accompanied with an inner IPv4 header and an ou
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The usual collocation for "accompany" is "by", not "with". (Also elsewhere.)

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

Thanks to Magnus for the TSVART review.