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@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

The -12 version of this document addressed my comments from my IETF last call review, Thanks. However, I have two major critics that should be discussed and decided and further comments to improve the document.

Major critic:

1. Does this document require to have normative text? I am struggling to convince myself of that. I have an example : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7478. RFC7478 falls into the same category as this document and does not use normative texts, still, it serves a great purpose. I believe this document can also drop the normative text and still be useful.

2. R18 talks about "per-flow states". We need to define what a "flow" means in this context. is this particular 5 tuple or something else.

Further suggestions:

# Abstract: Introduction can enumerate the necessary "more factors" rather than leaving them open to set the focus of the document.

# Introduction :

    - "end-side" is a term that would need some description.

# Section 3.1 : It is not really clear if CATS changed the core goal of edge computing to "provide computing services closer to users through shorter network paths". Is that the idea? Maybe it is better to remove that statement and focus on the last paragraph to make the problem statement clear.

#Section 3.2 : It says - "It's assumed that service instances are multi-site deployed, and they are reachable through a network infrastructure.". I am assuming multi-sides can be deployed over multiple network infrastructures. Then "a network infrastructure" is limiting.

# Requirements : Even if the CATS charter states - " CATS WG will focus on single domain models". Can we be clear here that these requirements are for a "single domain deployment model"? The charter will not leave forever, and usually readers will read the documents without reading the charter text carefully.