Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09
review-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09-genart-telechat-kline-2019-12-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-12-17
Requested 2019-12-03
Authors Santosh Pallagatti , Greg Mirsky , Sudarsan Paragiri , Vengada Prasad Govindan , Mallik Mudigonda
I-D last updated 2019-12-16
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Erik Kline (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Erik Kline (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Erik Kline
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cK9i3x624JFKmiAn25AoAR-Xpmg
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2019-12-16
review-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09-genart-telechat-kline-2019-12-16-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2019-12-16
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: 2019-12-19

Summary:

-09 addresses my concerns from -07.  Thank you for this.

The one "nit" is that it seems to have introduced a recommendation to use
::ffff:7f00:0/104 as an IPv6 loopback prefix.  (a) This document should follow
the format recommendations of RFC 5952 section 4.3 and lowercase the "F"s.  But
(b) more importantly, I'm not sure how implementations may treats this space.

The use of an RFC4291 section-2.5.5.2 mapped v4 address doesn't necessarily
make the packet a part of an IPv6 connection.  Nevertheless, I'm not sure I
have a strong feeling about this as it may still exercise enough of the IPv6
stack in a VTEP.

I definitely do think that in the case of BFD on the management VNI targeting
an IPv6 link-local address of the VTEP would be better.  However, I expect that
if ::ffff:127.0.0.0 does prove to have some issues in the future a -bis can be
written quickly with a recommendation.

Also, Suresh may have ideas for a solution.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: