[Teas] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-18
Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 21 May 2024 17:01 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F39FC1F58A7; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.11.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171631086609.49957.9599834466479684914@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 10:01:06 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 3EN2XYAZXJAVJRIYKUYTT4PSBTAQMXJQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3EN2XYAZXJAVJRIYKUYTT4PSBTAQMXJQ
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-teas.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.com>
Subject: [Teas] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-18
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/6Wl0g62HoYj38GnFd_paCN8xKdE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:teas-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:teas-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:teas-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Rich Salz Review result: Has Nits All page references are to the text version available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn/ I found it frustrating that the VPN acronym was explained in the Introduction but it wasn't until the bottom of p4 that NRP was spelled out. Bottom of page 5 has "The required layered network structure ..." Hubris? ;) Maybe "One possible layered network ..." Other then that, the introduction does a GREAT job of explaining the motivation, issues, and technology involved. This holds true, analogously, for all the other sections. As a result, I am bothered that I have to say "it has nits" because they really pale in comparison to the rest of the text. Congrats to the authors. I paid special attention to the security considerations and could not think of anything not already well-covered there. Even if not addressed, this document is ready and really brings up the quality average of IETF RFCs.
- [Teas] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas… Rich Salz via Datatracker
- [Teas] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Dongjie (Jimmy)