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

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

Yeah. I'll post this.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Loa
> Andersson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:46 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some questions...
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I reviewed and think we should post the new draft (cut-off is only a few
> days out).
> 
> Jouni,
> 
> Will you do this?
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 2017-06-28 04:29, Lou Berger wrote:
> > Done - also changed to STD track vs informational.  I don't have any
> > more planned comments to discuss or changes to make.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > On 6/27/2017 7:47 PM, Jouni wrote:
> >> Meant as a co-author ;)
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jouni [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 02:44 AM
> >>> To: 'Lou Berger' <[e-mail]>et>; 'Balázs Varga A'
> >>> <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: RE: [Detnet-dp-dt] changes to document pushed & some
> questions...
> >>>
> >>> 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]>om>; 'Balázs Varga A'
> >>>> <[e-mail]>om>; [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]>om>;
> >>>>>> [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]>om>;
> >>>>>>>> [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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt