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

[Ines Robles via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Issues

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/

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
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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" ?

- 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.

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

- 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.

* 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.

- Section 3.1:

* "it MUST ignore..." --> it must ignore ... ?

* "BGP session MUST NOT ..." --> BGP session must not ...?

- Section 3.2:

* "BFD" --> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) ?

* What means a site capacity goes dark?

- Section 3.4:

* It would be nice to add a reference to 5G, specially when mentions the 5G
core functions

* The mentioned problems and mitigations applies for 5G Standalone and
Non-Standalone deployments options?

- 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..."

- Section 3.7: suggestion to add the URL as a reference
(https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonVPC/latest/UserGuide/vpc-
   nat-gateway.html#nat-gateway-other-services)

Section 6:

* "now" --> "at the moment of writing this specification" ?

* Parenthesis opened at Internetworking, but it is not closed

Section 7:

* Should a reference to rfc5920 be added?

* Maybe could be added similar text as the sec considerations of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis ?

- Question: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis should be added in the
references? both drafts seems quite related

Thank you for this document,

Ines