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 42) | |
| 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) Dnsdir 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 Last Call review of -41 by Rich Salz (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 42) | |
| 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.