[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05

Daniele Ceccarelli via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 24 November 2023 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4449DC17C8B7; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:20:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Daniele Ceccarelli via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 11.15.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <170083564826.2243.2272186713134973815@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:20:48 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/MIP8o70lcRmQDIJUmnRohCzETsM>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:20:48 -0000

Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review result: Has Issues

- General: The term and concept of Enhanced VPN is being discussed in TEAS as
part of the WG last call. I suggest to follow that thread and align the draft
with whatever output will be agreed. - General: i would suggest to change the
title into "Applicability" rather than using. Per my understanding this
document describes how to use existing mechanisms to achieve something new (the
status is correctly informational) - Abstract: "enhanced isolation". i checked
if it was defined in the framework for Enhanced VPNs in TEAS, but i couldn't
find a definition there nor in this draft. What does it mean? - VTN: is this a
new term to identify a set of existing items? E.g. an ACTN VN, NRP, a set of
RSVP-TE tunnel, a topology built with flex algo...are they cases of VTN or the
VTN is a different thing? - Intro: s/than that can be provided/than the ones
that can be provided - "Another possible approach is to create a set of
point-to-point paths, each with a set of network resources reserved along the
path, such paths are called Virtual Transport Path (VTP)". In what is this
different from an ACTN VN member? See RFC 8453. - Introduction: "In some
network scenarios, the required number of VTNs could be small, and it is
assumed that each VTN is associated with an independent topology and has a set
of dedicated or shared network resources. This document describes a simplified
mechanism to build SR based VTNs in those scenarios." I don't understand, is
there the need for a specific mechanisms (different from existing ones) only
for particular cases in which the number of VTNs is small (smaller than other
scenarios)? - Section 3.1 "The usage of other TE attributes in
topology-specific TLVs is for further study." The draft is pretty simple and
small, can't the usage of other TE attributes be described here as well?