Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41: Discuss
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://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41 Thank you for the work put into this document, I can imagine the amount of work with 41 versions :-) but after balloting several DISCUSS points, I stopped reviewing it after section 3.7. I am also supportive of John's DISCUSS position. Please find below several DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Joel M. Halpern for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus (`While there was not widespread support`) and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ## Copyright Wrong template is used as `Simplified BSD License` should be "Revised BSD License". ## Section 3.5 AFAIK, the ".internal" is not a special-use domain name listed by IANA (and AFAIK not yet approved by ICANN), so, please be clear about this status (i.e., squatting a domain) in the document. ## Section 3.6 In 2024, such an I-D must care about IPv6 and not too much about IPv4 NAT. If this document insists to use some commercial cloud references, then please use also non-US-based cloud offerings. ## Section 3.7 What is `IPv6 optional header` ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Abstract Like already noticed by other ADs, the date 2023 in the abstract is seriously outdated, the document should be refreshed for content and the date moved to 2024. But, better having a date than no date at all... ## Section 2 `Third party Data Centers` I am not sure whether "3rd party" applies when the cloud DC is used only by the employees. `private clouds` should probably be defined to avoid any ambiguity. Should "SD-WAN" be expanded ? ## Section 3 `This section identifies some high-level problems that the IETF could address` sounds like the IETF has failed, please rephrase (e.g., using "IETF Technologies"). ## Section 3.1 Should `Public Cloud DCs` be explicitly defined ? `to form an IP adjacency` unsure what IP adjacency means, the adjacency term is often using for a layer-2 link between layer-3 nodes (e.g., OSPF), suggest using iBGP. More generally, the (valid) recommendations seem to apply to any peering and not really related to cloud DC. ## Section 3.2 Please defined "pod". I will welcome explanations about the 2nd paragraph. I fail to see about EVPN is related to Cloud DC. ## Section 3.3 s/with an IP address/with IP addresses/ ? Should the multiple interfaces (3GPP & Wi-Fi) issues be cited ? ## Section 3.4 Suggest to introduce the acronyms in section 2. ## Section 3.5 Please note that draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority is not about split horizon DNS (even if it is related), please use another reference. ## Section 3.6 What is "AWS Direct Connect" ? or even what is "AWS" ? (to be honest, I know but do not expect any IETF reader to know those commercial terms). _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
