A Framework for Network Resource Partition (NRP) based Enhanced Virtual Private Networks
draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-20

[Ballot comment]

"Enhanced VPNS" can be easily confused for EVPN / Ethernet VPN ? The
term is also sometimes capitalized and sometimes not, making it look
like a formal term and sometimes like an informal description. Why
not avoid using the word enhanced and call it "NRP VPN" ?

      [RFC9543] discusses the general framework, components, and interfaces for
      requesting and operating network slices using IETF technologies. These network
      slices may be referred to as RFC 9543 Network Slices, but in this document
      (which is solely about IETF technologies) we simply use the term "network
      slice" to refer to this concept.

There was a long discussion with the IESG for RFC9543 to not confuse the technology
with 5G network slices. Creating this "alias" here of course counters that whole
concept.

        While an enhanced VPN service may be sold as offering encryption
        and other security features as part of the service, customers
        would be well advised to take responsibility for their own
        security requirements themselves possibly by encrypting traffic
        before handing it off to the service provider.

This is true of all VPNs, and not really a security consideration for NRP VPNs ?

        The privacy of enhanced VPN service customers must be
        preserved. It should not be possible for one customer to discover
        the existence of another customer, nor should the sites that
        are members of an enhanced VPN be externally visible.

Same here?

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-19
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S15

* The FlexE link seems to be a 404.  Some light googling found this working
  link:

    https://www.oiforum.com/wp-content/uploads/OIF-FLEXE02.1.pdf

  but I don't know if that's what the authors/wg intend.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Christer Holmberg for the GENART review.

** Abstract

  This document also provides an overview of
  relevant technologies in different network layers, and identifies
  some areas for potential new work.

The new areas of work weren’t clear.

** Section 3.2.1.  Editorial.

  Some professional
  services are used to relying on specific certifications and audits to
  ensure the compliancy of a network with traffic isolation
  requirements, and specifically to prevent data leaks.

What is a “professional services”?  I know that term as “consulting”.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-18, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, lberger@labn.net, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Framework for NRP-based Enhanced Virtual Private Network) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'A Framework for
NRP-based Enhanced Virtual Private Network'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-05-24. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the framework for NRP-based Enhanced Virtual
  Private Networks (VPNs) to support the needs of applications with
  specific traffic performance requirements (e.g., low latency, bounded
  jitter).  NRP-based Enhanced VPNs leverage the VPN and Traffic
  Engineering (TE) technologies and adds characteristics that specific
  services require beyond those provided by conventional VPNs.
  Typically, an NRP-based enhanced VPN will be used to underpin network
  slicing, but could also be of use in its own right providing enhanced
  connectivity services between customer sites.  This document also
  provides an overview of relevant technologies in different network
  layers, and identifies some areas for potential new work.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

I think this document has received broad attention within the WG and, after substantial discussion now represents good WG consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

We had substantial discussions on terminology and concepts presented in the document.  Here too, discussion yielded an agreed upon result.  I do not expect any protests or strong objections to the current rev. 

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

The authors, WG contributors and RTG area reviewer, to their credit, were able to work together to resolve areas of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is an information framework document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There are intersections with other WGs and other SDOs, such as 3GPP. I expect that given the discussions on, and contributions to, this document that adequate review has already taken place. We may consider sending a Liaison to 3GPP regarding that the document has been approved for publication, once it is.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.  This is an information framework document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A.  This is an information framework document.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A.  This is an information framework document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. Previous comments have been addressed.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I don't believe so.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational. This is an information framework document. And Yes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, No IPR disclosed. see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XZ_pVXgTidUA2BxBDSEQufUWLx4/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, and only 5 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No open nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No. This is an informational RFC.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

N/A, this is an informational RFC

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A, this is an informational RFC

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

I think this document has received broad attention within the WG and, after substantial discussion now represents good WG consensus.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

We had substantial discussions on terminology and concepts presented in the document.  Here too, discussion yielded an agreed upon result.  I do not expect any protests or strong objections to the current rev. 

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

The authors, WG contributors and RTG area reviewer, to their credit, were able to work together to resolve areas of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is an information framework document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There are intersections with other WGs and other SDOs, such as 3GPP. I expect that given the discussions on, and contributions to, this document that adequate review has already taken place. We may consider sending a Liaison to 3GPP regarding that the document has been approved for publication, once it is.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.  This is an information framework document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A.  This is an information framework document.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A.  This is an information framework document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. Previous comments have been addressed.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I don't believe so.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational. This is an information framework document. And Yes.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, No IPR disclosed. see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XZ_pVXgTidUA2BxBDSEQufUWLx4/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, and only 5 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No open nits.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No. This is an informational RFC.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

N/A, this is an informational RFC

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A, this is an informational RFC

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

IPR Poll Complete:
New Responses:
    Jeff Tansura      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-ZgOt1272EvH5O-Iojoc6YRjchE/
    Bo Wu              https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kN1PnUWc7CUqmaKKtwq6inlSrws/
    Zhenbin Li        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/UGlP86q_aNynI-004AW9BdjPnm8/
    Qin Wu            https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FpWdq5Cyg9_jVoO2ZplT2no6scc/
    Sergio Belotti    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/lVsvdJsSbdgnBdVfPkFiUOKhEtE/
    Daniele Ceccarelli  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/LylI0likYAzhJZj0drrK__TrdwI/
    Haomian Zheng        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/zn0VWguI_Lxo6ryR3FduuqGggFA/

Status of IP Poll:
Authors:
  Jie Dong          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/2RuE6RQT6_ksIPJ-p6nzaLxmaeM/
  Stewart Bryant    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/HYTIUon0_V-wLdHKoGw_nMTHrA8/
  Zhenqiang Li      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/i59Ul8yRjEVKm88vhnq1B2WGnYk/
  Takuya Miyasaka    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/mDi_Nrg0zIE0ctqOb4cgR34c8U4/
  Young Lee          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ghnvCAnjrCgM2jd1WqjZ0FLCaKc/
Contributors:
    Daniel King        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/6o4XtZISVXe5e4a1bV9hUD_CG80/
    Adrian Farrel      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/SRTW3TXOdoslK1yDJhlCkmORAW0/
    Mohamed Boucadair    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BF7V2zNxvkexk3ZLPt2W64R3tSM/
Missing:
    Jeff Tansura       
    Zhenbin Li         
    Qin Wu             
    Bo Wu             
    Daniele Ceccarelli   
    Sergio Belotti     
    Haomian Zheng   

"Dongjie (Jimmy)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/2RuE6RQT6_ksIPJ-p6nzaLxmaeM/

Stewart Bryant
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/HYTIUon0_V-wLdHKoGw_nMTHrA8/

Zhenqiang Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jUarISN0lun2bZjB1bn7hEjmPQ8/

ta-miyasaka@kddi.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/mDi_Nrg0zIE0ctqOb4cgR34c8U4/

Young Lee
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ghnvCAnjrCgM2jd1WqjZ0FLCaKc/

Daniel King daniel@olddog.co.uk
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/6o4XtZISVXe5e4a1bV9hUD_CG80/

Adrian Farrel adrian@olddog.co.uk
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/SRTW3TXOdoslK1yDJhlCkmORAW0/

Mohamed Boucadair mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BF7V2zNxvkexk3ZLPt2W64R3tSM/

Missing Responses:

Jeff Tansura jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Zhenbin Li lizhenbin@huawei.com
Qin Wu bill.wu@huawei.com
Bo Wu lana.wubo@huawei.com
Daniele Ceccarelli daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@nokia.com
Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com