Re: [bess] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: (with COMMENT)

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Jim,

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions.

Resolutions to your comments are inserted below. They will be reflected in the version 21.

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Guichard via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 5:41 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: (with COMMENT)

Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fhandling-ballot-positions%2F&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4a1c657fe3e44e08b3c108dc38521442%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638447172391857077%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PyF8Ub%2FllY4TMKNnzK73bRNg27XvAAkwPJ7vd65SyS0%3D&reserved=0
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage%2F&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4a1c657fe3e44e08b3c108dc38521442%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638447172391863865%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YJaW5ptYl2P%2FsYCe%2FPPJl4Xc3KQ%2FsNgENN1%2Fjls18Es%3D&reserved=0



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Abstract: First paragraph use of 'The document' instead of 'This document'
seems awkward, I suggest using the latter. Further the second paragraph seems
completely out of place, and I would suggest removing it as it does not appear
to provide any value.

[Linda] Thanks, Updated per your suggestion.

- Section 3.1.1 (1st paragraph) - Add references for both IPsec and MPLS VPN on
first usage. Same comment for VRFs.
[Linda] Added.

- Section 3.1.1 (2nd paragraph) - Please expand on what the text "Additionally,
it assumes that one SD-WAN VPN can be mapped to one or multiple virtual
topologies governed by the SD-WAN controller's policies" means. From the
written text I am unable to understand it.
[Linda] Changed to the following:
      "It is important to highlight that a single SD-WAN VPN can be mapped to one or multiple virtual topologies governed by the SD-WAN controller's policies".

- Section 3.1.1 (3rd paragraph) - please explain what a 'Client Route' is. I
assume that you mean a route generated by an attached SD-WAN site, but the text
does not say that. In addition, please correct the text 'Route Target in the
BGP Extended Community' - Route Target Community is defined in RFC4360 so
please add with reference.
[Linda] Add the definition in the Terminology section. Add the RFC 4360 reference.
      Client Route: In this document, client route means the route attached to a client port of an SD-WAN edge.

- Section 3.1.1 (4th paragraph) - "For packets carried by an IPsec tunnel, the
IPsec tunnel's inner encapsulation header can have the SD-WAN VPN Identifier to
distinguish the packets belonging to different SD-WAN VPNs". Can they? is there
an RFC or draft defining that?
[Linda] Change the sentence to the following:
      "To convey the SD-WAN VPN identifier within packets transported through an IPsec tunnel, an extra layer of encapsulation, like GRE [RFC2784] or VxLAN [RFC7348], is needed before inserting the packet into the IPsec ESP header."


- Section 3.4 - add references for 'MPLS-in-IP/GRE-in-IPsec'.
[Linda] Added.

- Section 4.3 - "In the context of a BGP-controlled SD-WAN, BGP UPDATE messages
can disseminate IPsec-related attribute values for each node..." - do you mean
using RFC5566 here? if so, please add a reference - if not then please add a
reference on how BGP should disseminate the IPsec-related attribute values.

[Linda] Yes, added.

- Section 5.1 - add reference for NHRP (RFC2332)
[Linda] Added.