Zahed, Thank you very much for reviewing the document and the comments. Please see if the proposed resolutions to your comments inserted below are acceptable.
Linda -----Original Message----- From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 10:23 AM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statem...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; j...@joelhalpern.com; j...@joelhalpern.com Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41: (with COMMENT) Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fhandling-ballot-positions%2F&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C46965e9625c3414d215d08dcd8068d61%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638622769867265260%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QjykN50mAKpMKjVwpqVs7Y6oRWh2ah39kUotVSQlA3k%3D&reserved=0 for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement%2F&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C46965e9625c3414d215d08dcd8068d61%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638622769867273850%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WO7pF9w5dB8OBVGp4ny9GTV2wVVcM9LtJC0XcNMx3I8%3D&reserved=0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this document. I don't comments from transport protocol aspects, however, I have following observations which I believe will improve the document when addressed - # Section 3.4 : this section need to relate the listed issues to networking problem. It says - 1) The difference in routing distances to server instances in different edge Clouds is relatively small. Therefore, the instance in the Edge Cloud with the shortest routing distance from a 5G UPF might not be the best in providing the overall low latency service. So, this becomes mainly resource selection issue as routng distance is not an issue. [Linda] The intent is to say that routing based on the shortest routing distance alone may not guarantee the lowest overall latency. Routing needs to considers both the distance and the service delay. 2) Capacity status at the Edge Cloud might play a more significant role in end-to-end performance. Again not sure how this becomes networking issue. [Linda] the 2) is to support 1) to emphasize that routing needs to base on both the routing distance and the capacity status at the edge cloud. Do you think merging the 1) & 2) together can make it clearer? " While distances from the LDN Ingress router to server instances in different edge clouds may vary slightly, the overall service latency is significantly influenced by both routing distance and capacity status at the edge cloud. Therefore, a routing protocol solely based on the shortest routing distance alone may not guarantee the lowest overall latency. A more comprehensive approach that considers both factors is essential for the routing protocol to achieve service performance." 3) Source (UEs) can ingress from different LDN Ingress routers due to mobility. Does the routing distance become a issue now? [Linda] This is a different routing problem when the ingress router changes for the same service. Do you think the following wording is better? "Due to user mobility, sources (UEs) can ingress from different LDN Ingress routers, presenting a routing challenge." # Section 3.4 : I also think the text is speculative regarding CATS WG and may be unnecessary as [METADATA-PATH] is already solving the issues. [Linda] It was requested by CATS WG to added in. Is it better to delete it? # Section 3.6 : is there any generic way to solve the NAT related issue listed or will it be always Cloud operator specific configuration? [Linda] As this document is to describe general problems for connecting network to Cloud, maybe future document can explore a generic way to solve the NAT related issue. Thank you, Linda
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
