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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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...