Paul, Thank you very much for the review. Please see below for the resolution to your comments. The revision will be uploaded next Monday when the IETF submission opens.
Linda -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:24 PM To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement....@ietf.org Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-...@ietf.org>; rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART Early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-21 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.tools.ietf.org%2Farea%2Fgen%2Ftrac%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C419d7fc09c1e4931016f08db28a7284d%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638148470646333149%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AeeuoU7BAIkYfQqIdB0wCzy5ugqsaB5xNb9uGWqKupw%3D&reserved=0>. Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C419d7fc09c1e4931016f08db28a7284d%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638148470646333149%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qzC0K3H8VJuUIzq0Hp68OHatBkTSJbtFroudxUrKpAM%3D&reserved=0>. Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-21 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2023-03-19 IETF LC End Date: ? IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. Note: This review is limited by this reviewer's unfamiliarity with MPLS or BGP. I strongly suggest you get a review by someone who can address those topics. Issues: 1 Nits: several ISSUE (MINOR) The intended purpose of and audience for this document isn't clear. I infer this is primarily intended to kick off and guide further normative standards work, and hence the audience is other IETF participants. It would be helpful to spell this out. The abstract notes things that are out of scope. Clarifying the audience and purpose would also help in determining scope. [Linda] How about adding the following statement? The intent is primarily for guiding further standards work in the Routing Area. NITS: The following is a bunch of editorial nits for you to consider: * Section 2: s/Salesforces/Salesforce/ [Linda] corrected. * Section 3.2 Something is wrong with the grammar in: "When those failure events happen, the Cloud DC GW which is visible to clients are running fine." It can be fixed by s/clients are/clients is/, if that is what you mean. [Linda] Is the following statement more clear? When a site failure happens, the Cloud DC GW visible to clients is running fine; therefore, the site failure is not detectable by the Clients using BFD. * Section 3.3: s/state of the art solutions is/state of the art solutions are/ [Linda] changed. s/load balancer by responding a FQDN/a load balancer by responding with a FQDN/ [Linda] Changed the statement to the following: Many applications have multiple instances instantiated in different Cloud DCs. A commonly deployed solution has DNS server(s) responding to an FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) inquiry with an IP address of the closest or lowest cost DC that can reach the instance. s/Local DNS resolver become/The Local DNS resolver becomes/ [Linda] Changed. * Section 3.4 The expanded definition of UPF appears with the 2nd usage. It would be easier on the reader to move it to the first use. [Linda] added. * Section 3.5 The phrase "There are many aspects of security issues" is awkward. Perhaps one of the following would be better: - There are many aspects of security - There are many security issues [Linda] changed to “There are many security issues” Also a formatting issue in item (a). * Section 3.8 The wording of the following is awkward: "One of the concerns of using Cloud services is not aware of where the resource is located, especially Cloud operators can move application instances from one place to another." I suggest: - s/is not aware/is not being aware/ - s/especially/especially that/ [Linda] Changed. * Section 4.1 s/Figure below/Figure 1 below/ [Linda] Changed. In the same paragraph: - s/workloads are accessible/workloads that are accessible/ [Linda] changed. * Section 4.3 s/used to dynamically connecting MPLS/used to dynamically connect MPLS/ s/As MPLS VPN provide/As MPLS VPNs provide/ [Linda] Changed. * IdNits reports a number of other issues. I won't repeat them here. You can run it to see them. [Linda] Thank you very much.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
