RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-22

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Ines,
We sincerely appreciate your review and comments to the draft.
Please see below the resolutions to your comments.

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2023 1:56 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-22

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Issues

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%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e5b2dc071a44e2f3d5108db392c17c8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638166633779772763%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AONS8n8mDjgHHiSf%2BuZkVeOGgEA3zGmWKmlNUnYYm7c%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.

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%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e5b2dc071a44e2f3d5108db392c17c8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638166633779772763%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CeCrmvCOBYS2VLPocmVpfaH8SMmZ0f6atMgAwPJ8mxg%3D&reserved=0

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-22.txt

Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review Date: 09-04-2023

Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

This document mentions some network-related problems enterprises faces at this moment when interconnecting their branch offices with dynamic workloads in third-party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs) alongside with mitigation practices.

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.

Comments/Minor Issues:

- Abstract: "today" --> "at the moment of writing this specification" ?
[Linda] changed.

- Section 1: The abstract mentions that the problems are related to MPLS, but the introduction does not mention it. Furthermore, it would be nice to explain why these 8 problems (Section 3) were selected in relation with MPLS.
[Linda] changed the MPLS networks to "traditional VPN networks". MPLS is just one example. We believe those 8 problems are the network-related problems enterprises face at the moment of writing this specification when interconnecting their branch offices with dynamic workloads in third-party data centers. If you can list more, please elaborate.


- Section 2, VPC: "... Most Cloud operators' VPCs only support...." --> "at the moment of writing this specification, most Cloud operators' VPCs only support...." ?
[Linda]changed.

- Section 3:

* " There are many problems associated with connecting to hybrid Cloud" --> "... connecting to Cloud DCs" ? In this way, it is aligned with the title.
[Linda] changed.

* Some mitigations include references, but It would be nice to add references to all of them.

* It would be nice to add in each mitigation, the costs of applying it.
[Linda] the cost depends on the service providers. It is out of the scope of this document to describe the cost.

- Section 3.1:

* "it MUST ignore..." --> it must ignore ... ?
[Linda] changed.

* "BGP session MUST NOT ..." --> BGP session must not ...?
[Linda] changed.

- Section 3.2:

* "BFD" --> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) ?
[Linda] changed.

* What means a site capacity goes dark?
[Linda] Meaning the capacity goes to zero


- Section 3.4:

* It would be nice to add a reference to 5G, specially when mentions the 5G core functions
[Linda] Added the reference to 3GPP TS 23.548 v18.1.1, "5G System Enhancements for Edge Computing", April 2023.

* The mentioned problems and mitigations applies for 5G Standalone and Non-Standalone deployments options?
[Linda] The 3GPP's Edge Computing is for 5G only.

- Section 3.5: "More diligents security procedures..." --> it would be nice to add some examples, "More diligents security procedures such as (add example) [add reference] need to be considered..."
[Linda] changed the text to "Additional Internet security procedures need to be designed that are able to mitigate all these issues.

- Section 3.7: suggestion to add the URL as a reference
(https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.aws.amazon.com%2FAmazonVPC%2Flatest%2FUserGuide%2Fvpc-&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C5e5b2dc071a44e2f3d5108db392c17c8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638166633779772763%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F6CeF%2FS4yv2CMIPhVxm1ilxNyujV83IMkAPkew6rOyA%3D&reserved=0
   nat-gateway.html#nat-gateway-other-services)
[Linda]   Changed. Also added Azure NAT reference.

Section 6:

* "now" --> "at the moment of writing this specification" ?
[Linda] changed.

* Parenthesis opened at Internetworking, but it is not closed
[Linda] added.

Section 7:

* Should a reference to rfc5920 be added?
[Linda]RFC5920 is about MPLS security. This document is more about using IPsec to connect to Cloud DCs. Therefore, I don't think it is necessary to reference the rfc5920.

* Maybe could be added similar text as the sec considerations of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis ?
[Linda] gap analysis draft is only for guiding the group discussion, is not going towards RFC.

- Question: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis should be added in the references? both drafts seems quite related.
[Linda] gap analysis will not be published.

Thank you for this document,

Ines