Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-20
review-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-20-dnsdir-early-obser-2023-03-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-19
Requested revision 19 (document currently at 43)
Type Early Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2023-04-09
Requested 2023-03-06
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Authors Linda Dunbar , Andrew G. Malis , Christian Jacquenet , Mehmet Toy , Kausik Majumdar
I-D last updated 2026-03-19 (Latest revision 2025-09-15)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -36 by Deb Cooley (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -32 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Intdir Early review of -26 by Benson Muite (diff)
Secdir Early review of -22 by Deb Cooley (diff)
Genart Early review of -21 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -22 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -22 by Ines Robles (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -22 by David L. Black (diff)
Dnsdir Early review of -22 by Florian Obser (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -41 by David C Lawrence (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -41 by Shuping Peng (diff)
Secdir Early review of -41 by Mike Ounsworth (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -41 by Rich Salz (diff)
Comments 
Dear colleagues,

RTGWG chairs would like to begin an early review process for the draft.

Thanks,
Yingzhen & Jeff
Assignment Reviewer Florian Obser
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-20-dnsdir-early-obser-2023-03-07
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/is3SH0S7G2Zizu8_5M8_-4lMC-4
Reviewed revision 22 (document currently at 43)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-03-27
The information below is for an old version of the document.
review-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-20-dnsdir-early-obser-2023-03-07-00
Apologies for the delay in coming back to you. This was due to my
inexperience of the review procedure.

Thank you for the changes, they address all the raised issue.
Unfortunately my requested change introduced a new nit:

| If an organization uses an internal name like .internal and then want
| your services to be available via or within some other cloud provider
| which also uses .internal, then collisions might occur.

should be

| If an organization uses an internal name like .internal and then want
| their services to be available via or within some other cloud provider
| which also uses .internal, then collisions might occur.

i.e. s/your/their/

Florian