[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Shiping,

Thank you very much for the review and the comments.

Please see below of the resolutions to your comments & suggestions.

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Shuping Peng via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 12:53 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41

Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review result: Ready

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cf1b7caed846d4030bd6308dcd0a460aa%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638614651643563297%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=P16AeEu3bDU8dJTbpleFgdgz45SV7DC8Jf7oNKwE6Lg%3D&reserved=0

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.

As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrac.tools.ietf.org%2Farea%2Frtg%2Ftrac%2Fwiki%2FRtgDir&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cf1b7caed846d4030bd6308dcd0a460aa%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638614651643574460%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QX2eTpq%2F3POic2R6bGWGasq0J6lWBgtUF2uANSqmJL8%3D&reserved=0

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41.txt
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review Date: 9-Sep-24
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

Comments:

I wonder whether it is necessary to keep the phrase "at the time of writing this document" shown a few times in this document. Every draft is written based on the information obtained at the time of its writing. Moreover, this draft is stratched over seven years for now. It is hard to tell when exactly the corresponding text was written. I noticed in the abstract that 2023 was added, but still.

[Linda] the wording "at the tie of writing this document" was requested by DIR early reviewers.


Section 2.
Page 4. Why is the term "Underlay Connectivity Services" capitalized? And "Application Flows"?
[Linda] because the "Underlay Connectivity Services (UCS)" is a service specified in MEF-70.1 & Application Flows is also special terminology specified by MEF70.1 SD-WAN services. The entire wording is taken from MEF70.1.


Section 7.
Page 19.
"While this specific protocol isn't being
        suggested the risks and vulnerabilities apply to any group key
        management system."

What is "this specific protcol" being mentioned here?
[Linda]  The Group Key Management [RFC4535]. Changed the wording to the following to improve the clarity.

      "While [RFC4535] specific protocol isn't being suggested, the risks and vulnerabilities apply to any group key management system."

Nits:
1. page 4, s/managing cloud spending/managing Cloud spending
[Linda] changed.

2. page 18, s/internet/Internet
[Linda] changed.

All changes will be reflected in -v42.

Linda