David,
Thank you very much for the detailed review and comments.
The intent of the document is to describe the network-related problems
enterprises face when interconnecting their branch offices with dynamic
workloads in Cloud DCs and the mitigation practices (gluing many IETF drafts
for those mitigation practices. )
How about drop the "Problem Statement" using the following title?
Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs: Problems and Mitigation Practices
Thank you,
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: Black, David <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 1:19 PM
To: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; Magnus Westerlund
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
Black, David <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32
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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On
Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 10:31 AM
To: Magnus Westerlund; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art__;!!LpKI!lZlVbwzdDeyRBROpUcr4gY8LUA0NM6sBNr9lgmr67W0QLi_QqLl8alVfTi7vxuTY2rTT_QeTiPmhvIY$
[ietf[.]org]
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
