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

Hi WG,

I support WG adoption of this draft. Please find some comments for the
considerations for the authors - all of them can be handled post adoption.

   - Document abstract consider AppMetaData to be well-known, it would be
   better if a sentence is added first on what is AppMetaData in the context
   of BGP.
   - Abstract and Introduction says 3 new subTLVs but no context of where
   those subTLVs are present. They are mentioned later on in section 3.
   - Section 3, adding description for metrics would be nice (or provide
   references)
   - Section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 has useful information, but it is not clear
   how it is linked to AppMetaData.
   - Section 4.3, add a unit for Measure Period time
   - Manageability and Security are key for this work, and thus
   considerations for both should be added soon

Nits

   - s/subTLVs/sub-TLVs/
   - Expand on first use - UE, CPE
   - Section 3.1.1 calls the plugin as “load
   Compute Engine” where as Section 5 calls it “Cost Compute Engine” - are
   they same or different things?

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:53 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> 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/
>
> 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]?
>
> 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?
>
>
More details in managebility consideration should be added for this!

> 3) Will the addition of this information aid
> Routing in 5G networks?
>
>
Yes!

Thanks!
Dhruv

> Cheers, Sue Hares
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>