Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-app-meta-data-09.txt (7/29/2022 to 8/12/2022)

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Donald,

Thank you very much for the comments and catching the types.

See below on the resolution for your comments and suggestions:

Thank you very much.
Linda
From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 1:20 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-app-meta-data-09.txt (7/29/2022 to 8/12/2022)

Hi Sue,

I have read this draft and support working group adoption. See answers to questions below and some editorial comments further below.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 6:23 AM Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> This begins a 3 week WG Adoption call for
> draft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-app-meta-data-09.txt
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-app-meta-data/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-app-meta-data%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C728285ddac7b4e9cad0d08da7d5874fa%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637960116135409928%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=l58Zki%2Fl2UOsKlmrd0QR9eBgzIrVNchWyD0Ttt6cNIg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> This draft proposes a new SubTLV (AppMetaData)
> for the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute [RFC9012]
> that indicates the running status and environment of directly
> attached 5G Edge Computing (EC) instances.
>
> The AppMetaData can be used by routers in the
> 5G Local Data Network to make path selection
> not only based on the routing distance but also the running
> environment of the destinations. The goal is to improve
> latency and performance for 5G EC services.
>
> In your discussion of this adoption call, please consider
> these questions:
>
> 1) The addition of this type of information to tunnels
> is useful for inter-domain routing within 5G networks?

Yes.

> 2) What type of additional load this data to
> Basic Tunnel encapsulation [RFC9012]?

It seems to me to be a reasonably low load.

> For example is the load placed by this draft equal or
> Less than the SR routing additions from
> such as draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy?
>
> 3) Will the addition of this information aid
> Routing in 5G networks?

I think so, although I believe it could also be useful in some non-5G networks.

See editorial comments below.

> Cheers, Sue Hares

Editorial Comments:
Section 2: There are entries for A-ER, L-DN, PSA, and SSC that are not used and could be deleted.
[Linda] they are deleted.

Various: S1:aa08::4450 is used as an IPv6 address but I don't get what this "S1" means.
[Linda] S1 is intended to represent the Service logical name which is assigned with the IPv6 address of  aa08::4450

Section 3.1.2: There is this illustration before which it says "is not to be standardized" but I think it would be better to say "is an informational example".
[Linda] Changed to your suggested wording.
Inside that illustrative example is "[5G-Sticky-Service]" which does not appear in the references and should perhaps be "[5G-Edge-Sticky]". In the last paragraph in this section is a reference to "Section 6 Soft Anchoring" but that doesn't seem to be what Section 6 is about.
[Linda] Thank you for catching this typo.


Section 3.1.3: In the first line, I think "eNB" should be "gNB".
[Linda] Correct.

Section 4.1: I think it would be better if the description of the fields in Figure 2 appeared between Figure 2 and 3 rather than after Figure 3.
[Linda] changed accordingly.


Section 4.2: In the first sentence there is a reference to Soft Anchoring in Section 5 but that doesn't seem to be what Section 5 is about.
[Linda] it was the leftover from splitting the draft to two drafts.

Section 5: In describing the proposed Extended Community, the Usage-Index field is said to describe what is in the Site Capacity Index field but the Site Capacity Index field is described as just being a percentage. The diagram should probably have a Figure number and inside the diagram "Side" -> "Site". In the description of Site Reference, "identifier" ->"identifier".
[Linda] Thank you for catching the Typos.

References: There are a number of references not used in the draft including RFCs 4363, 8200, and 5521.
[Linda] Removed.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>