Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07
review-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2019-05-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-05-31
Requested 2019-05-17
Requested by Martin Vigoureux
Authors Juniper Networks, Sudarsan Paragiri, Vengada Govindan, Mallik Mudigonda, Gregory Mirsky
Draft last updated 2019-05-23
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Joel 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 Emery (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2019-05-23
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/o8NDkKYA6oSGx1J_Lz3PGTmvzOg
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2019-05-23

Review
review-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2019-05-23

Hello,

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 ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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:
   N/A

Nits: N/A