Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:38:30 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-09: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document describes the use of BFD in VXLAN, however, it does not specify
any new protocol elements or extension. Therefore I would expect such a
document to be informational. The shepherd write-up doesn't give any additional
information about why this doc is PS.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:38:23 -0500

Mirja,

> information about why this doc is PS.

The chairs did ask Martin to enquire from the IESG what level of standards
this document should target.  We realize that the base vxlan spec (oddly) is
Informational, however we were encouraged at multiple points to go for
Proposed standard.

Martin theoretically enquired of the IESG, but got no answer.  We were told
on November 6 to go ahead with Proposed.

The BFD Working Group is ambivalent about the level of standard for this
document.  My request is that the IESG provide some level of consistent
guidance here rather than your single comment. :-)

I leave it to our AD, Martin, to summarize back the final status of your
collective deliberations and we shall update the document accordingly.

-- Jeff