[RTG-DIR]Re: RtgDir Last Call review of draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07

[[e-mail]]

Hi Alvaro, 

Thank you for the review and comments. 

The latest version of the I-D has addressed the security section comments you made and also included the additional references, and we cleaned up the documents reference usage (normative and informative).

Latest version: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing/
Diff from the previous version: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-08

BR, Dan (on behalf of the authors).

-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 12 August 2024 21:52
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [RTG-DIR]RtgDir Last Call review of draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07

Hi!

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07
Reviewer: Alvaro Retana
Review Date: August 12, 2024.
Intended Status: Informational


Summary: This document is basically ready for publication but I have some concerns that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:

The document is well structured and easy to read.

I have two concerns:

(1) Security Considerations

The text in section 6 is good.  For completeness, it would benefit from a pointer to the Security Considerations in rfc8453 and rfc9543, as well as the Privacy Considerations in that last document.


(2) References

Based on the definitions from the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [1], I believe some of the Informative references should be Normative because they refer to "documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology" in this document.

The terminology from I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn is used.

Unless the text in §4 is used as an example of the applicability (but that was not mentioned), the drafts/RFCs mentioned there as specifics on how the ACTN framework is applied to network slicing should be
Normative: I-D.ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics,
I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang, I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang,
I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang, I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te, RFC8299, and RFC8466.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references



Alvaro.