[RTG-DIR]Re: [EXTERNAL] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-19

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Russ and all,
Looking at the quote from Section 3.5 in the review:

"the customers are delivered with enhanced VPN service..."

I am not a native English speaker, but I doubt customers are ever delivered by (or with) any kind of VPN services, including enhanced ones. At best customer traffic is delivered.

My 2c,
Sasha



Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 9:40:25 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [RTG-DIR]RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-19

Hello,

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<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 IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-19
Reviewer: Russ White
Review Date: 29 May 2024
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: informational

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This document is very readable. I have one minor question and a few
possible minor nits. None of these are blockers, just suggestions.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

In 1.0 Introduction

The requirements of enhanced VPN services cannot simply be met by
overlay networks, as enhanced VPN services require tighter coordination
and integration between the overlay and the underlay networks.

I think a word might need to be added here to differentiate between
"unintegrated overlay/underlay" and "integrated overlay/underlay?" The
way it's worded now might be a tad bit confusing, as one moment it says
something like "an overlay cannot do this," then it says something like
"an overlay can do this if it's integrated correctly." Or perhaps
something like "an overlay without differentiated services cannot ..."
?? No specific "good answer," just seems like something that might be
helpful to readers.

Nits:

In 2.0 Terminology

ACTN: Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered [RFC8453].

The items on this list have varying formats ... just want to make
certain this is intentional.

In 3.1 Performance Gaurantees

"Guaranteed maximum delay variation ..."

Might it be useful to put "(jitter)" in here someplace, especially as
"jitter" is used later in the document.

In 3.2.1 Requirements on Traffic Isolation

the traffic
isolation provided by the service provider

Maybe just "traffic isolation," here, as the rest of the sentence seems
redundant?

In 3.5 Customized Control

In many cases the customers are delivered with enhanced VPN services
without information about the underlying NRPs.

The word "with" seems out of place here?

Disclaimer

This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.