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
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/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-opsawg-sap-04
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 2022/05/15
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.
Major Issues:
None
Minor Issues:
1. Section 2, the definition of Service Attachment Point (SAP) is hard to
understand here, the definition depends on the definition of "service's
endpoint" and "TP" that is not defined in the document or lack of references(if
defined in other documents). More text needed here and it's better to make it
consistent with the definition in other places (e.g., Introduction section).
2. Section 3,
" The
model is also used to retrieve the network points where a service is
being delivered to customers."
What's the meaning of the "network points" here? Is it a node, link, interface
or something else, some clarification needed here, or using a more specific and
well-known term here.
3. Section 4, " Also, the SAP is not a tunnel termination point (TTP) (Section
3.6 of
[RFC8795]) nor a link." Why need to state this here, maybe it's better to
move it to the place of the definition of "SAP".
4. identity basic-connectivity {
base vpn-common:service-type;
description
"Basic IP connectivity. This is, for example, a plain
connectivity offered to Enterprises over a dedicated
or shared MPLS infrastructure.";
Since it's a "IP connectivity", why emphasize that it is over an "MPLS"
infrastructure?
Nits:
1. Abstract section, the second sentence of paragraph, s/ The Service
Attachment Points/SAPs
2. Section 1, the last 3rd para, it's better to add references when mention
L2VPN and L3VPN
3. Section 3, suggest to add a reference to EVPN.
4. Section 5, suggest to add the references to LAG, IRB.
5. identity virtual-network, suggest to copy the description of "Virtual
Network" from RFC 8453.
6. It's better to add more text to the description of identity phy, loopback,
lag and irb.
Best regards,
Mach
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
