I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement/


The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.


For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir


Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-22.txt

Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review Date: 09-04-2023

Intended Status: Informational


Summary:


This document mentions some network-related problems enterprises faces at this moment when interconnecting their branch offices with dynamic workloads in third-party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs) alongside with mitigation practices.

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.


Comments/Minor Issues:


- Abstract: "today" --> "at the moment of writing this specification" ?


- Section 1: The abstract mentions that the problems are related to MPLS, but the introduction does not mention it. Furthermore, it would be nice to explain why these 8 problems (Section 3) were selected in relation with MPLS.


- Section 2, VPC: "... Most Cloud operators' VPCs only support...." --> "at the moment of writing this specification, most Cloud operators' VPCs only support...." ? 


- Section 3: 


* " There are many problems associated with connecting to hybrid Cloud" --> "... connecting to Cloud DCs" ? In this way, it is aligned with the title.


* Some mitigations include references, but It would be nice to add references to all of them.


* It would be nice to add in each mitigation, the costs of applying it.


- Section 3.1: 


* "it MUST ignore..." --> it must ignore ... ?


* "BGP session MUST NOT ..." --> BGP session must not ...?


- Section 3.2: 

* "BFD" --> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) ?

* What means a site capacity goes dark? 


- Section 3.4: 


* It would be nice to add a reference to 5G, specially when mentions the 5G core functions


* The mentioned problems and mitigations applies for 5G Standalone and Non-Standalone deployments options?


- Section 3.5: "More diligents security procedures..." --> it would be nice to add some examples, "More diligents security procedures such as (add example) [add reference] need to be considered..."


- Section 3.7: suggestion to add the URL as a reference (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonVPC/latest/UserGuide/vpc-
   nat-gateway.html#nat-gateway-other-services) 

   
Section 6: 


* "now" --> "at the moment of writing this specification" ?

* Parenthesis opened at Internetworking, but it is not closed


Section 7: 


* Should a reference to rfc5920 be added?


* Maybe could be added similar text as the sec considerations of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis ?


- Question: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis should be added in the references? both drafts seems quite related



Thank you for this document,


Ines