|
HI Dave: I'm wondering if inserting a sentence at the start of the last paragraph in the introduction section would go far enough address your concern? "This 5G specific repurposing of fields results in an encapsulation uniquely applicable to the requirements for the communication of PDU session traffic between the subscriber premises and the 5G system over wireline networks.
The 8 byte RFC 2516 data packet header is also the most frugal of the encapsulations that are currently supported by legacy access equipment that
That does not say it cannot be repurposed for other nefarious ends…. Nor is it a health warning. Just a narrower scoping. Thoughts? Dave -----Original Message----- Reviewer: David Black 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
tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. This is well-written concise draft that defines a PPPoE encapsulation for carrying data between a 5G residential gateway and the associated 5G Access Gateway Function (AGF). For reasons described in the draft, it addresses that scenario
well. I have one minor concern with this draft, which is almost a nit. The draft should have a stronger statement of applicability to indicate that the encapsulation applies only to the specific 5G usage envisioned, as that usage relies upon
the network operator provisioning sufficient bandwidth and managing the network accordingly. This encapsulation is not suitable for deployment over the public Internet in general or any network in which congestion is an important operational consideration.
This is because the encapsulation may carry non-congestion-responsive traffic, as further indicated by specific QFI values. A detailed discussion of congestion is not necessary - clarification and focus of applicability of the encapsulation should suffice. |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
