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 ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/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-opsawg-sap-04
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 2022/05/15
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:
1. Section 2, the definition of Service Attachment Point (SAP) is hard to understand here, the definition depends on the definition of "service's endpoint" and "TP" that is not defined in the document or lack of references(if defined in other documents).  More text needed here and it's better to make it consistent with the definition in other places (e.g., Introduction section). 

2. Section 3, 
" The
   model is also used to retrieve the network points where a service is
   being delivered to customers."
What's the meaning of the "network points" here? Is it a node, link, interface or something else, some clarification needed here, or using a more specific and well-known term here.

3. Section 4, " Also, the SAP is not a tunnel termination point (TTP) (Section 3.6 of
   [RFC8795]) nor a link." Why need to state this here, maybe it's better to move it to the place of the definition of "SAP".

4. identity basic-connectivity {
       base vpn-common:service-type;
       description
         "Basic IP connectivity. This is, for example, a plain
          connectivity offered to Enterprises over a dedicated
          or shared MPLS infrastructure.";
Since it's a "IP connectivity", why emphasize that it is over an "MPLS" infrastructure?

Nits:
1. Abstract section, the second sentence of paragraph, s/ The Service Attachment Points/SAPs
2. Section 1, the last 3rd para, it's better to add references when mention L2VPN and L3VPN
3. Section 3, suggest to add a reference to EVPN.
4. Section 5, suggest to add the references to LAG, IRB.
5. identity virtual-network,  suggest to copy the description of "Virtual Network" from RFC 8453.
6. It's better to add more text to the description of identity phy, loopback, lag and irb.

Best regards,
Mach