Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99

Hi,

Jouni, thank you very much for preparing the slides!
I agree it is good.

just a minor comments.

title page could reflect that this is in fact draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol-01. 
I know that the draft is there at the bottom of many pages, but perhaps 
it'd be better to call out to the title page.
(and data plane solutions design team, not data plane alternatives ;-) )

Thanks,
Janos

On 7/14/2017 4:29 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Looks.  Just add page numbers...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lou
>
>
> On 7/14/2017 7:22 AM, Korhonen, Jouni wrote:
>> Another update.
>>
>> - Jouni
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 13:22 PM
>>> To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>; Jouni
>>> <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; Korhonen, Jouni
>>> <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>; 'Balázs Varga A'
>>> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>
>>> T-label imo.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>
>>> On July 14, 2017 4:26:06 AM Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I was confused by L-label in the last version and S-Label. But
>>>> we still need to harmonize the T-Lable with the S-Label.
>>>> For example, if we set up a low-latency or contention-free LSP for a
>>>> detnet flow (between DA-T-PEs or DA-S-PEs), most probably we need some
>>>> traffic engineered LSPs (i.e., L-LSP as defined in RFC 3270).
>>>> Can we regard L-LSP labels on the path to be a T-Label or an S-Label?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Yuanlong
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jiangyuanlong
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:56 PM
>>>> To: Jouni; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>>>> detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure we need to introduce S-Label in the first place.
>>>> As I remember, we had some consensus that PW label has carried enough
>>>> information in the f2f discussion happened during the last IETF meeting.
>>>> And S-label is regarded redundant for PW. Did I miss something?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yuanlong
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jouni
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:17 PM
>>>> To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; 'Korhonen, Jouni'; 'Balázs Varga A';
>>>> detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 20:39 PM
>>>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>; Balázs Varga A
>>>>> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>; detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for preparing this. Some small comments below:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Slide 6: I'd remove "native" in "PW-based native DetNet" to be
>>>>> consistent with the terms used in the draft (alternatively, I'd use
>>>>> "IPv6- based native DetNet" in slide 7for consistency with "PW-based
>>>>> native DetNet in slide 6).
>>>> Oops. Good catch.
>>>>
>>>>> - Slides 11 and 12: use the same order for "Flow-ID" and "SeqNum" on
>>>>> the slides (right hand side)
>>>> Ok.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - Slide 11: though I have no concrete proposal, I think the S-label
>>>>> could be better introduced (maybe with a figure, also introducing the
>>>>> (DA-)T-PE and (DA-)S-PE node terminology).
>>>> Ok. I'll come up with something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - Slide 14: "already be seen" --> "already been seen"
>>>> Ok.
>>>>
>>>> - Jouni
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 13:57 +0000, Korhonen, Jouni wrote:
>>>>>> An update.. I am still doing the QoS etc part of the deck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Balázs Varga A [mailto:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 12:54 PM
>>>>>>> To: Korhonen, Jouni <Jouni.Korhonen@nordicsemi.no>;
>>>>>>> detnet-dp-dt@ie tf.org
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for preparing this. Just some fast reactions:
>>>>>>> - slide5-6-7: we may receive a comment that it looks like only
>>>>>>> end- hosts having same type (TSN, MPLS, IPv6) can be
>>> interconnected.
>>>>>>> I would propose to add a note, that other combinations as
>>>>>>> depicted requires further considerations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - slide8: we have used the MS-PW analogy during our discussions.
>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>> it is valid only if PREF is used.
>>>>>>> I would propose to refer on the first bullet only to "PseudoWires"
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> "IPv6" as the two data plane solution.
>>>>>>> A further note could highlight the MS-PW analogy for PREF
>>> scenarios.
>>>>>>> - slide10-11: I would pair the DetNet flow specific information
>>>>>>> fields to be transported with the data plane encapsulation fields.
>>>>>>> 	DetNet flow	Encapsulation fields
>>>>>>> 	Flow ID:	PW label
>>>>>>> 	Seq. number: 	CW
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - slide14: regarding multicast DetNet flows I would formulate
>>>>>>> somewhat different. In my view we have considered p2p data plane
>>>>>>> solutions.
>>>>>>> The defined data plane works for DetNet flows having multicast
>>>>>>> dst- address assuming that the DetNet domain provides p2p
>>> connectivity.
>>>>>>> We may also receive comments that many DetNet flows are multicast
>>>>>>> (e.g., TSN flows using IEEE-FRER, etc.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Bala'zs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Korhonen, Jouni
>>>>>>> Sent: 2017. július 12. 23:29
>>>>>>> To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>>>>> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] DP DT solution draft slides for IETF99
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry about this taking so long. Please, have a look and flame on..
>>>>>>> There's still time to work on the actual content. However, keep
>>>>>>> in mind that this is mainly an update from last time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
>>>> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt