Hi Linda, Yes, the suggested changes will make it clearer and looks good to me.
/Magnus From: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 31 January 2024 at 20:48 To: Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32 Magnus, Thank you very much for the review and comments. Resolutions to your comments are listed below. Please let us know if they are satisfactory. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 4:01 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-32 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. [Linda] 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 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. [Linda] The document is to describe the issues and to glue all the IETF drafts posted to address the issues identified in the document (as the mitigation methods) . 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. [Linda] Thanks for catching this. Customer Gateway -> CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) Thank you, Linda
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
