Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and 
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide 
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing 
Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-19
Reviewer: Russ White
Review Date: 29 May 2024
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: informational

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that 
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This document is very readable. I have one minor question and a few 
possible minor nits. None of these are blockers, just suggestions.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

In 1.0 Introduction

The requirements of enhanced VPN services cannot simply be met by 
overlay networks, as enhanced VPN services require tighter coordination 
and integration between the overlay and the underlay networks.

I think a word might need to be added here to differentiate between 
"unintegrated overlay/underlay" and "integrated overlay/underlay?" The 
way it's worded now might be a tad bit confusing, as one moment it says 
something like "an overlay cannot do this," then it says something like 
"an overlay can do this if it's integrated correctly." Or perhaps 
something like "an overlay without differentiated services cannot ..." 
?? No specific "good answer," just seems like something that might be 
helpful to readers.

Nits:

In 2.0 Terminology

ACTN:  Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered  [RFC8453].

The items on this list have varying formats ... just want to make 
certain this is intentional.

In 3.1 Performance Gaurantees

"Guaranteed maximum delay variation ..."

Might it be useful to put "(jitter)" in here someplace, especially as 
"jitter" is used later in the document.

In 3.2.1 Requirements on Traffic Isolation

the traffic
    isolation provided by the service provider

Maybe just "traffic isolation," here, as the rest of the sentence seems 
redundant?

In 3.5 Customized Control

    In many cases the customers are delivered with enhanced VPN services
    without information about the underlying NRPs.

The word "with" seems out of place here?