Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 33) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-01-05 | |
| Requested | 2023-12-19 | |
| Requested by | Susan Hares | |
| Authors | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai , Natrajan Venkataraman | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-01-05 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -18
by Jonathan Hardwick
(diff)
Secdir Early review of -18 by Magnus Nyström (diff) Opsdir Early review of -19 by Bo Wu (diff) Secdir Early review of -19 by Magnus Nyström (diff) Tsvart Early review of -27 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff) Secdir Early review of -30 by Magnus Nyström (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff) Opsdir Early review of -12 by Bo Wu (diff) |
|
| Comments |
RTG-DIR - Jon Hardwick is working on the review, but this request is to revise the date for completion. If Jon could review this draft by 1/5/2023, it would be helpful. OPS-DIR - Bo Wu did the review in July. It would be helpful for him to review the latest version (-18) or later. Or you can obtain another person, SEC-DIR - Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities about the network. TSV-DIR - Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Bo Wu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/o5aunNn0G_YFPJMARHMUOlHJ9Zs | |
| Reviewed revision | 19 (document currently at 33) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2024-01-05 |
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05-00
Hi, I am the assigned Ops reviewer to conduct the "early" review of this draft. This is my second review. Thanks for addressing my previous comments. I have few minor comments on rev-19: 1)Abstract and Section 3. Architecture Overview Abstract says “overlay routes”, but section 3 uses “service routes”. Can the service route be used consistently? If not, can you add the difference? 2) 3. Architecture Overview Please add the description or examples of SN for Figure 1. 3) 4. Transport Class The document says "The terms'Transport Class ID' and'Color' are used interchangeably in this document" These two seem two different definitions, as section 7.10. has the following text: "Transport Class ID SubTLV, in MultiNexthop Attribute. Color SubTLV, in Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute. Transport Target Extended community, on BGP CT route. Color Extended community, on BGP service route." 4) 10. Operations and Manageability Considerations Only RDs and labels are discussed. Should transport class RT managment also be described in this section? 5) 12. Applicability to Network Slicing Network slice is just an example of BGP CT. Should this section be an appendix? About Mapping Community, Network Slice service traffic mapping occurs on the PE's CE-facing interfaces, while Mapping community is on the PE's network-facing interfaces, correct?