Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-06
review-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-06-tsvart-lc-eddy-2021-03-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2021-04-05
Requested 2021-03-22
Requested by Joe Clarke
Authors Samier Barguil , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Mohamed Boucadair , Qin Wu
I-D last updated 2021-03-30
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Radek Krejčí (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -06 by Radek Krejčí (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Victoria Pritchard (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -09 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Wesley Eddy
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/vp3zzNzOTFi1ezJFyKJEZ1DncpM
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 12)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2021-03-30
review-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-06-tsvart-lc-eddy-2021-03-30-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

(1) I noticed in the "qos-classification-policy" there is "l4" support either
TCP or UDP.  It isn't clear if other transport protocols are purposefully not
included.  Should this also support SCTP and/or DCCP, or other transport
protocol numbers in general?  Are the QUIC aspects that might be matched
contained within the UDP fields supported?

(2) Is the allowable MTU another aspect of VPN services that should be able to
be expressed?

(3) ICMP isn't mentioned as an identity type, and I wondered if this should be.