Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan-15
review-ietf-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan-15-tsvart-telechat-eddy-2026-08-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Telechat Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2026-08-18
Requested 2026-07-27
Authors Kausik Majumdar , Linda Dunbar , Venkit Kasiviswanathan , Ashok Ramchandra , Aseem Choudhary
I-D last updated 2026-08-24 (Latest revision 2026-08-24)
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -05 by Jon Geater (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -07 by Gabriele Galimberti (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -15 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Wesley Eddy
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/g_C7x5KKSjlqpOs4mu7Bhbhoe7g
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 16)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2026-08-17
review-ietf-rtgwg-multisegment-sdwan-15-tsvart-telechat-eddy-2026-08-17-00
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.

I don't think this is quite ready for 2 reasons:

1) Since an additional set of headers is required (outer IP + UDP + GENEVE w/
the MultiSeg-SDWAN option), there is an obvious effect on packet size.  Other
than one recommendation about using a truncated HMAC value to reduce packet
overhead, there doesn't seem to be any consideration around how fragmentation
will be avoided or how MTUs are configured or information on them propagates
within the different SD-WAN segments and tunneling protocols being stacked up. 
How are people doing this in practice, and are there some general guidelines
and advice that should be provided?  From a transport protocol perspective, I
think this is a big missing aspect to the document.

2) I didn't find the document very readable in the beginning / Introduction
section.  It improves significantly and is fine deeper into the document, but
the introduction is not helpful IMHO.  The "Net2Cloud" reference is useful, but
unfortunately, I found the introduction section of this particular RTGWG
document a bit hard to understand in terms of specific technical problems.  It
has very specific protocols, architectures, and traffic flows in mind, but
doesn't define them well, and expects the reader to just understand.  The first
paragraph jumps in discussing "SD-WAN" (without qualifying what specific
approaches or technologies for SD-WAN are meant, nor even explaining the
acronym).  I found the diagrams later in Section 3.1 & 3.2 useful, but it would
help earlier in the introduction to describe what is being discussed in terms
of the cloud gateway, CPEs, etc. and where these are located or what types of
connectivity, addressing, encryption, etc. exists between them.