Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Draft update in github

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 13:58 +0800, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Jouni,
> 
> I was working on reviewing the previous version, I see that
> you captured most of (very close to sll<9 of the comments I had.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1. IETF is mostly doing "on the wire" specifications, what is in the
> box is mostly viewed as implementation specific. Against this
> background
> why do we need "local-ID", isn't that implementation specific?
> 
> 2. There are two sentences "In the context of this document DA-T-PE
> is
> referred as T-PE." and "In the context of this document DA-S-PE is 
> referred as S-PE." Wouldn't it be better to actually use the new
> abbreviations, DA-T-PE and DA-S-PE?

I agree with this. I've just committed a new version that (except for
the appendixes) only uses DA-*-PE. I've reworked the figures.

Carlos

> 
> 3. Then I wonder if you got what is optional in the label stack
> and what is not; what needs to be there is one single tunnel, we have
> called that L-labels (PW architecture call it PSN Tunnel) all the
> rest
> of the T-Label tunnels are  optional.
> 
> I wrote it down like this:
> 
>     +-------------------------------+
>     |                               |
>     |          DetNet Flow          |
>     |            Payload            |  n octets
>     |                               |
>     +-------------------------------+
>     |      DetNet Flow Id           |  4 octets
>     +-------------------------------+
>     |      DetNet Control Word      |  4 octets
>     +-------------------------------+
>     |          MS-PW Label          |  4 octets
>     +-------------------------------+
>     |            L-Label            |  4 octets
>     +-------------------------------+
>     |   (optional) MPLS T-Label(s)  |  n*4 octets (four octets per
> label)
>     +-------------------------------+
> 
> 
> DetNet Flow Payload - n octets
> DetNet Flow Id      - 4 octets, part of the encapsualtion header,
>                        i.e. not in the label stack
> DetNet Control Word - 4 octets, the 16 least significant but are a
>                        a sequence number.
> MS-PW Label         - 4 octets, this label is unchanged between two
>                        DA-x-PEs, and at PW set up it is decided if
>                        the Native Service Processing includes DetNet
>                        FRER or not, the MS-PW Label is swapped at
>                        DA-S-PE.
> L-Label             - carries the MS-PW Label unchanged from one
>                        DA-x-PE to the next
> T-Label(s)          - are optional, and strictly not part of the
>                        DetNet encapsulation.
> 
> I don't want you to change but maybe capture a few bits and pieces
> from this.
> 
> Then I have one ridiculous concern, the DA-S-PE does not need to 
> interface a CE, and does not necessarily sit on a domain border, and
> is
> tthus not necessary a "real" PE. If we ant to keep calling it a PE
> (I think we should), we should have some words around this.
> 
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> On 2017-03-10 12:55, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> > Folks,
> > 
> > I did quite a bit of updates to the draft. All in GitHub. I’ll
> > continue writing over the weekend etc..
> > 
> > - Jouni
> > 
> > 
> 
>