Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...

["Jouni" <[e-mail]>]

Meant as a co-author ;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 02:44 AM
> To: 'Lou Berger' <[e-mail]>; 'Balázs Varga A'
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...
> 
> Done my small thingies.
> 
> Lou, add yourelf as a editor.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 02:00 AM
> > To: Jouni <[e-mail]>; 'Balázs Varga A'
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
> questions...
> >
> > Yes. I'm done done. Sorry...
> >
> >
> > On June 27, 2017 6:45:37 PM "Jouni" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > Are you now done with your edits? I was working on the same section
> > > and dropped my stuff in a favor of yours ;) I'll still want to
> > > revisit Section
> > > 6 before statingnthe draft is ready for adoption.
> > >
> > > - Jouni
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > >> Of Lou Berger
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 00:36 AM
> > >> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>;
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
> > questions...
> > >>
> > >> I just added a few word into to section 6 to highlight that it
> > >> applies to
> > >> v6 and mpls:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>    This section applies equally to DetNet flows transported via
> > >> IPv6
> > and
> > >>    MPLS.  While flow identification and some header related
> processing
> > >>    will differ between the two, the considerations covered in this
> > >>    section are common to both.
> > >>
> > >> feel free to check in what ever changes you want to this.
> > >>
> > >> Also I added the following comment:
> > >>
> > >>     <!-- LB: I think there needs to be more text on how PREF works
> with
> > >>          IPv6 flows. -->
> > >>
> > >> Lou
> > >>
> > >> On 6/27/2017 1:39 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On 6/27/2017 7:44 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote:
> > >> >> Hi Lou,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Bidirectional: proposed change is fine with me.
> > >> > okay, I'll make this and the s-label change
> > >> >
> > >> >> - PREF and IPv6: It is not clear for me why the PREF support is
> > >> considered to be different.
> > >> >> From data plane perspective the PREF related chapters are
> > >> >> formulated to be encapsulation independent. The only difference
> > >> >> is that in case of IPv6 the flow-ID does not change during the
> > >> >> transport ("src-IPv6 + Flow-label" remains unchanged), whereas
> > >> >> it may change in case of MPLS (PW-label value may change on a
> > >> >> PREF node). But the rest is the same
> > >> from data plane function perspective (i.e., eliminate duplicates
> > >> based on seq-num; do replication).
> > >> > I didn't get this from reading the document the first time.  I'll
> > >> > reread and suggest clarifications if needed.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Have I missed something? Do You mean different control plane
> > >> requirements?
> > >> > No, I was thinking data plane.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Lou
> > >> >> Cheers
> > >> >> Bala'zs
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >> >> Behalf Of Lou Berger
> > >> >> Sent: 2017. június 26. 17:55
> > >> >> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>;
> > >> >> [e-mail]
> > >> >> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
> > >> questions...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 6/26/2017 11:00 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote:
> > >> >>> Hi,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I have reviewed all the changes. I am fine with almost all of
> > >> >>> them with the remarks below:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Figure4: In my view it should be the same figure as Figure 3,
> > >> >>> as DetNet End Systems are connected.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> In this case the End Systems generate IPv6 packets with
> > >> >>> included seq-num and are connected to
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Relay nodes, what results in no difference regarding the DetNet
> > >> >>> functionalities.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> It's my understanding that there is major difference in PREF
> > >> >> support in
> > >> this case.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> It would be a more interesting figure where IPv6 DetNet End
> > >> >>> Systems are connected
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> to an MPLS based DetNet domain, but it is similar from DetNet
> > >> >>> function perspective to Figure 2.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Let's list the possible combinations:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> - We have three End System types: (1) TSN, (2) IPv6 and (3)
> > >> >>> MPLS-capable
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> - We have two PSN encapsulations: (1) IPv6 and (2) PWoMPLS
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> There are six possible combinations, however they result in 2
> > >> >>> major variants from DetNet functions
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> perspective:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> (1) End System type <> PSN type (TSN + IPv6, TSN + PWoMPLS,
> > >> >>> IPv6
> > >> >>> + PWoMPLS, MPLS-capable + IPv6)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Edge node needed to ensure PSN specific encapsulation
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> (2) End System type = PSN type  (IPv6 + IPv6, MPLS-capable +
> > >> >>> PWoMPLS)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> No need for Edge node as the encapsulation does not change.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> (Note: I think we should treat "MPLS-capable + IPv6" as an
> > >> >>> invalid combination ... )
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Figure 2 and Figure 3 are the representation of these two major
> > >> >>> variants. So do we really need Figure 4?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> 522       DetNet composite flow, perhaps even when both LSPs
> > appear
> > >> >>> on the
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 522       DetNet compound flow, perhaps even when both LSPs
> appear
> > on
> > >> the
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with IPv6 is
> > >> >>>> always
> > >> >>> end-to-end, ...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I think this needs further discussion. The intention is to make
> > >> >>> PREF independent of domain borders and
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> domain encapsulations.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> It would be good to describe how this works in the v6 case
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> 1033 7.4.  Bidirectional traffic
> > >> >>> This chapter is very much MPLS focused, however the findings
> > >> >>> are also valid for IPv6. Should we make that
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> more clear?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> My objective in the first paragraph was to introduce the
> > >> >> co-routed and
> > >> associated concepts/terminology and then say how.  How about
> > >> changing the last paragraph to:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>    While the IPv6 and MPLS data planes must support
> > >> >> bidirectional
> > >> DetNet flows, there
> > >> >>    are no special bidirectional features with respect to the
> > >> >> data
> > plane
> > >> >>    other than need for the two directions take the same paths.
> > Note,
> > >> >>    that there is no stated requirement for bidirectional DetNet
> > >> >> flows
> > >> to
> > >> >>    be supported using same IPv6 Flow Label or MPLS Labels in
> > >> >> each
> > >> direction.
> > >> >>    Control mechanisms will need to support such bidirectional
> > >> >> flows for
> > >> both IPv6 and MPLS, but
> > >> >>    such mechanisms are out of scope of this document.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Lou
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Cheers
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Bala'zs
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >> >>> Behalf Of Lou Berger
> > >> >>> Sent: 2017. június 21. 4:25
> > >> >>> To: [e-mail]
> > >> >>> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
> > questions...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> All,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I made a bunch of changes based on going though the document.
> > >> >>> Most of the comments I discussed.  I put non-discussed ones in
> > >> >>> their own commits so it would be easier to eliminate them.
> > >> >>> Changes are as
> > >> follows:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     commit f79188034b23c80dab2985dc359176e93855376e
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                 Update txt to match change set
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     commit 01a1798e4645518bb61acf42444b17466c3b56c1
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                 Make capitalization of section headings
> consistent.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                 Not saying I agree with what's there, but now
> > >> >>> it's consistent.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     commit 27103f9af301d1a270ca7d6c9bd59a358dc9d1b0
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                 Revise CoS and QoS sections
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     commit c98c0efda04c714db22a1cea6eefb77f04d10c4b
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                 General edits:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                     Fix some capitalization and minor nits
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                     Add intro paragraph and pointer to arch
> > >> >>> doc, and basic scope of
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                        document
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                     Add not on why not using PW over IP
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                     Add placeholder for IP native service
> > >> >>> figure
> > >> >>> (4)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                     Start clarification on congestion
> > >> >>> protection and latency control
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                     Add some comments
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     commit 5355f195f205d944d21d8242738fab0a6a8363ba
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>                 Cleanup L-label and T-label language
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     commit 78e937b1a25f07618b4b221140fc7fcfc2a43d02
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>        Move Time Sync into it's own section (new 8)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     commit 42bcb46dde2384cb4e3f76406780137086904bae
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>        Use arch defined terms DetNet compound flow and DetNet
> > >> >>> member flow
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I also came up with following specific questions/comments,
> > >> >>> which are also captured in comments in the file:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> WRT the title:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     <!-- LB: doesn't "Encapsulation" better fit the scope of
> > >> >>> the current
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>          document than "Solution"? -->
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     <title abbrev="DetNet Data Plane Solution">
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     WRT L-Label
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     <!-- LB: why is this called L-Label, I think it'll be
> > >> >>> confused with
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>          the current DiffServ L-LSPs, perhaps a using "(S)vc"
> > >> >>> would be
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>          better and is aligned with Figure 12 of RFC5921  -->
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   <!-- LB: unclear what the following means.  Perhaps restate
> > >> >>> or
> > drop.
> > >> >>> -->
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   However, transit nodes may have limited capabilities to
> > >> >>> recognize DetNet
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   specific fields (e.g., in case of MPLS the PW label).
> > >> >>> Therefore, identifying each
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   individual DetNet flow on a transit node may not be achieved
> > >> >>> in some network
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   scenarios.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   in Section 5.2.1
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     <!-- possibly reference new interworking considerations
> > >> >>> section
> > >> >>> -->
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>   In section 5.3.2
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>     <!-- LB: doesn't the above (sec 5.2.2.) imply the PREF with
> > >> >>> IPv6 is
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>          always end-to-end, or are you PREF domains with
> > >> >>> replication of
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>          incoming packets and scoped domain elimination? I
> > >> >>> think this
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>          should be explicitly discussed either way -->
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I ran out of steam at the end, but this is enough -- I think...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thanks,
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Lou
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> PS given that I now have contributed text to the document, I
> > >> >>> should be added as a contributor (or author) but I didn't do
> > >> >>> this as there was no contributor section...
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> > >> >> [e-mail]
> > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> > >> >>
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> > >> > [e-mail]
> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> >
>