Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Inclusion of the mitigation references is definitely valuable.

I agree with Magnus that this draft is not a “Problem Statement” draft, and suggest that those two words in the title be replaced – e.g., perhaps the draft title could be “Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs: Considerations and Mitigation Practices” accompanied by appropriate rephrasing in the draft itself.

The minor MTU and ECN concerns raised in my earlier TSV-ART review have been sufficiently addressed in the current version of this draft.

Thanks, --David

-----Original Message-----
From: Tsv-art <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 10:31 AM
To: Magnus Westerlund; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

My reading as shepherd of the inclusion of the mitigation references was 
that it constituted a fair effort to recognize that the community hadd 
not and was not ignoring these issues, and that any effort to better 
address the issues should be aware of the existing mitigation efforts.  
As an informational document it does not prescribe any of the 
mitigations as that would be inappropriate for the document.

I am sure the authors have further clarifications,

Joel

On 1/19/2024 5:01 AM, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
> discussion list for information.
>
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> [e-mail] if you reply to or forward this review.
>
> First of all let me tell you how the document comes across to me. It appears to
> be an identification of a number of potential hurdles for enterprises deploying
> using hybrid cloud. The issues identify some options or mitigations for the
> issue. To the level where I am uncertain that it really is problem statement.
> The requirements list in section 6 appears quite high level and identifying
> some factors where at least some where limitations in implementations, rather
> than in standards. So, I don't see this document as a problem statement that
> results in clearly identifying the need for standards work in an area to
> address a set of issues with common solution. So from my perspective I think
> the document can really be focuses on informational document pointing out
> mitigations for issues. However, the document is quite wide and an enterprise
> will have to make choices based on its situations, chose cloud providers and
> other factors for how to deploy or evolve their deployment. Thus, I think the
> problem statement part of the document can really be eliminated.
>
> Also, I think it is a bit unclear if document is on the edge between a
> Informational document informing on existing solutions as mitigations, or if it
> actually recommend or prescribe usage of solutions in situations that might not
> before been envisioned or recommended.
>
> Additional comments:
> Section 4.1:
>
> "A Customer Gateway can be a customer owned router or ports
>     physically connected to an AWS Direct Connect GW."
>
> In Figure 1, is the customer gateway the CPE, or any of the other gateways at
> the DC or cloud provider? I would request clarifying the definition of the
> customer gateway.
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tsv-art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art__;!!LpKI!lZlVbwzdDeyRBROpUcr4gY8LUA0NM6sBNr9lgmr67W0QLi_QqLl8alVfTi7vxuTY2rTT_QeTiPmhvIY$ [ietf[.]org]