Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] No call this week
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 27 June 2017 21:41 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44B81200C5
for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id zGAA01vDdTKY for <detnet-dp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com
(gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.226])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C498412EB43
for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83])
by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E5D140960
for <Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:41:01 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with
id dxgx1v0052SSUrH01xh0W1; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:41:01 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=Z7GcJDZA c=1 sm=1 tr=0
a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17
a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=LWSFodeU3zMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8
a=v74qUS4SL_L7Qqq1tfYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net;
s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version
:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:
Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:
List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
bh=EGtgf8H5G/V69sPVJ8jC+SNtxdxcvt6rQerXUbJEivw=; b=z3XwBp5aCBGeXlDTbVNjX4V47s
BUeL6w6tIP9uyvoeTMDUo1h8PuhTg8QFi0bVXrQh1Zj8nml0xLZZN/bze4sF4WNkP20/c2nWOow5K
ANUSCiYzP97+rfCpRHiUYbwn4;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:44696
helo=[IPv6:::1])
by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128)
(Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>)
id 1dPyEA-0007hG-L1; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:40:57 -0600
To: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
References: <05ce01d2ef06$899f33c0$9cdd9b40$@gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <b3f5f9fc-4724-5af6-286f-75f290d8ac24@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:40:50 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <05ce01d2ef06$899f33c0$9cdd9b40$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.84.20
X-Exim-ID: 1dPyEA-0007hG-L1
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1])
[100.15.84.20]:44696
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet-dp-dt/UpTKADTbPHqk9phTW2BwOx9oMFs>
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] No call this week
X-BeenThere: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DetNet WG Data Plane Design Team <detnet-dp-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet-dp-dt>,
<mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet-dp-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt>,
<mailto:detnet-dp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 21:41:05 -0000
Jouni/all,
Here's the list of open questions/issues I've noted in comments in
the text:
<!-- LB: doesn't "Encapsulation" better fit the scope of the current
document than "Solution"? -->
So the question here is should the draft be titled "DetNet Data Plane
Encapsulation" since it doesn't encompass a full solution (e.g., due to
lack of description of DetNet traffic service and related wire behavior.)?
<!-- Jouni: Add Lou as author or contributor -->
Which is at the Editor's discretion.
<!-- LB: possibly reference new interworking considerations section -->
I believe this was going to at least be an empty section with an editors
note. It would be good to get this in prior to adoption if it's going
to go in.
<!-- LB: I think there needs to be more text on how PREF works with
IPv6 flows. -->
I think this can happen after WG adoption.
That's it,
Lou
On 6/27/2017 1:30 AM, Jouni wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I again have a force majoeure during our normal call hours. Anyway, there's
> been good editing on the draft. I'll have my pass over it tomorrow (PDT) and
> then I think we are done with it as a DT.
>
> - Jouni
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>
- [Detnet-dp-dt] No call this week Jouni
- Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] No call this week Lou Berger