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

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

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
>