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

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:38:59 -0800

Warren Kumari 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Benjamin and Eric's DISCUSSES - I considered holding a DISCUSS on the
"loopback address" terminology and formatting (which was also noted in the
excellent OpsDir review by Jürgen Schönwälder), but think that Eric can carry
it.

In addition, like Jurgen, I think it would be helpful to have pointers to where
terms are defined - the "Terminology" section isn't really terminology, but
rather just an acronym expansion section.

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:30:54 -0800

Hi Warren,
thank you for the review. I've updated the representation of IPv6 addresses
to follow RFC 5952 and the reference to IPv4-mapped IPv4 loopback addresses
range per recommendations from Adam Roach. Attached, please find the diff
that highlights the updates made in the working version of the draft.
As to the suggestion made by Jurgen in his first review, would changing the
title of the section to Acronyms and Abbreviations make the scope of that
section more clear?

Regards,
Greg