Rich, Thank you very much for the review. Reply to your comments are inserted below: -----Original Message----- From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 12:25 PM To: art@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; rtgwg@xxxxxxxx Subject: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-41 Reviewer: Rich Salz Review result: Ready with Nits This document talks about the network architecture and issues that come up when trying to connect their branch offices to third-party/cloud data centers, while leveraging their investment in conventional VPN services. It describes some problems and proposes some mitigations to them. I reviewed this document from the ART perspective and have little to say. I would expect RTG and SEC to have much more to say. In Section 2, "commonly used terms" was a little surprising, as I wouldn't think those needed definition. Maybe find other words to introduce the list of terms? [Linda] This draft has gone through many rounds of review by directorates of all IETF areas. Many of those terms are suggested by them to added to Section 2 (Conventions Used in This Document). I agree with you that many terminologies are so obvious. Linda The document does not have any of the issues in the "common ART issues" list (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/art/TypicalARTAreaIssues), because it is at a higher level then bits and bytes in data or on the wire. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
