Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-21

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-19
Requested revision 19 (document currently at 39)
Type Early Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
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 2023-03-23
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -36 by Deb Cooley (diff)
Tsvart 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)
Dear colleagues,

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

Yingzhen & Jeff
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 21 (document currently at 39)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-03-23
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-21
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2023-03-22
IETF LC End Date: ?
IESG Telechat date: ?


This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
fixed before publication.

Note: This review is limited by this reviewer's unfamiliarity with MPLS or BGP.
I strongly suggest you get a review by someone who can address those topics.

Issues: 0
Nits: several


The following is a bunch of editorial nits for you to consider:

* Section 2: s/Salesforces/Salesforce/

* Section 3.2

Something is wrong with the grammar in:

"When those failure events happen, the Cloud DC GW which is visible to clients
are running fine."

It can be fixed by s/clients are/clients is/, if that is what you mean.

* Section 3.3:

s/state of the art solutions is/state of the art solutions are/

s/load balancer by responding a FQDN/a load balancer by responding with a FQDN/

s/Local DNS resolver become/The Local DNS resolver becomes/

* Section 3.4

The expanded definition of UPF appears with the 2nd usage. It would be easier
on the reader to move it to the first use.

* Section 3.5

The phrase "There are many aspects of security issues" is awkward. Perhaps one
of the following would be better:

- There are many aspects of security
- There are many security issues

Also a formatting issue in item (a).

* Section 3.8

The wording of the following is awkward:

"One of the concerns of using Cloud services is not aware of where the resource
is located, especially Cloud operators can move application instances from one
place to another."

I suggest:

- s/is not aware/is not being aware/
- s/especially/especially that/

* Section 4.1

s/Figure below/Figure 1 below/

In the same paragraph:

- s/workloads are accessible/workloads that are accessible/

* Section 4.3

s/used to dynamically connecting MPLS/used to dynamically connect MPLS/
s/As MPLS VPN provide/As MPLS VPNs provide/

* IdNits reports a number of other issues. I won't repeat them here.
You can run it to see them.