Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-01-23
Requested 2023-12-11
Requested by Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Authors Krzysztof Grzegorz Szarkowicz , Richard Roberts , Julian Lucek , Mohamed Boucadair , Luis M. Contreras
I-D last updated 2024-02-23
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Alvaro Retana (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -02 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Intdir Early review of -02 by Timothy Winters (diff)
We are interested in identifying any area-specific issues.
Assignment Reviewer Timothy Winters
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 07)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2024-02-23
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see

Summary: I don't think there are any Internet issues in this document. I think
it's in good shape for publishing as Informational document. I found the
Appendix C was helpful, as I'm not an expert in 5G deployments.

This document recommends encoding of the IP addressing in section 4.2 using
most significant 96-bits to simplify mapping tables.  There is nothing wrong
with this, but it should be noted for privacy and other considerations if/when
deploying over the public internet space.  Section 5.2.1 allows for IPv6
encapsulation using SR6, so there is no issue with MTU that any encapsulation
technique would encounter.  It uses DSCP for QoS, so there no use of flow
labels or additional headers.

Figure 32 table has some formatting errors.