Aijun, Thank you for the support and the comments.
Please see below for the detailed replies. Linda From: rtgwg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 2:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement Hi, All: This document provides some insights for the emerged problems when the enterprises wants to connect their network with the Cloud DC services. But before its forwarding, I think the following issues should be solved: 1) It will be helpful for the reader if the document can provide one panorama graph at the beginning to illustrate the overall network topology that problems can emerged. It seems that the document wants mainly focus on how to connect/extend the traditional VPN services to the Cloud/Multi-Clouds-----if we omit the 5G edge clouds related issues(section 3.4)-----all the remaining issues are coming from such scenario------Jumping directly to the dispersed technologies can easily confuse the reader. [Linda] The document is mainly about multiple ways to connect to workloads in the Cloud, e.g. via L3VPN, Private circuit, and the public Internet, a.k.a. via SD-WAN connection to the workloads. Less about the underlay network topologies. Figure 1 is intended for the illustration. 2) It will be better to organize the current issues in more structure manners, for examples: a) Describes the problems based on the above panorama graph according to the related technologies-BGP(section 3.1)/DNS(section 3.3/3.5)/IP Secs(section 5.1/5.2)/NAT(section 3.6) etc, b) Add other non-technologies issues, for example site failure, inter-cloud connection etc. [Linda] The document is an informational document, for describing a set of network-related problems enterprises face when interconnecting their branch offices with dynamic workloads in Cloud DCs and various mitigation practices and actions to soften the issues induced by these problems. Site failure is a big issue, which builds the foundation for draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service. 3) For one standard document, even it is informational, the contents within it should be generalized, and the name of companies or their solutions should be omitted.(section 4.1/4/2) [Linda] They were suggested by Earlier Directors review. People think it is necessary to have a few examples. 4) The connections among the problem statements and the requirements(section 6) should be improved. Currently, there is no stronger logic between these two parts. [Linda] The requirements are steamed from the mitigation practices documented in this document. 5) The 5G edge cloud related issues can be omitted. As mentioned in the document, it is currently being discussed mainly within CATS WG. [Linda] First, CATS WG is not just about 5G. 5G is only a small example in CATS. Second, this document is many years before CATS WG. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:44 PM To: RTGWG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement Dear RTGWG, The authors have requested the RTGWG to last call the draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement draft. The authors have addressed all the comments received from the early reviews and shepherd (thanks Joel!). Please indicate support or no-support by December 20 2023. IPR: If you are listed as a document author or contributor and haven’t responded to the IPR call, please respond to this email of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. Thanks, Yingzhen and Jeff
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
