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