Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32
review-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32-tsvart-lc-westerlund-2024-01-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32
Requested revision 32 (document currently at 39)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2024-02-02
Requested 2024-01-09
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Linda Dunbar , Andrew G. Malis , Christian Jacquenet , Mehmet Toy , Kausik Majumdar
I-D last updated 2024-01-19
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)
Comments 
The last Tsvart review was done by David Black, and we'd request this review to be assigned to him as well.
The review should include the state of resolution of the concerns raised in the early review of the -22 version. In particular, how well the “target audience or purpose of this draft” concern (next to last paragraph of early review) has been addressed.

We (the RTGWG chairs) really appreciate your support.

Thanks,
Jeff and Yingzhen
Assignment Reviewer Magnus Westerlund
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/z_Pcp3uV1jN-dyBUDDUcY7UfrTo
Reviewed revision 32 (document currently at 39)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2024-01-19
review-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32-tsvart-lc-westerlund-2024-01-19-00
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.

First of all let me tell you how the document comes across to me. It appears to
be an identification of a number of potential hurdles for enterprises deploying
using hybrid cloud. The issues identify some options or mitigations for the
issue. To the level where I am uncertain that it really is problem statement.
The requirements list in section 6 appears quite high level and identifying
some factors where at least some where limitations in implementations, rather
than in standards. So, I don't see this document as a problem statement that
results in clearly identifying the need for standards work in an area to
address a set of issues with common solution. So from my perspective I think
the document can really be focuses on informational document pointing out
mitigations for issues. However, the document is quite wide and an enterprise
will have to make choices based on its situations, chose cloud providers and
other factors for how to deploy or evolve their deployment. Thus, I think the
problem statement part of the document can really be eliminated.

Also, I think it is a bit unclear if document is on the edge between a
Informational document informing on existing solutions as mitigations, or if it
actually recommend or prescribe usage of solutions in situations that might not
before been envisioned or recommended.

Additional comments:
Section 4.1:

"A Customer Gateway can be a customer owned router or ports
   physically connected to an AWS Direct Connect GW."

In Figure 1, is the customer gateway the CPE, or any of the other gateways at
the DC or cloud provider? I would request clarifying the definition of the
customer gateway.