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

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

Thanks János, I understand. I agree with you (and just mentioned that I
think it'd be good to remove the term also from the detnet architecture
document to be more consistent).

Thanks,

Carlos

On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 00:13 +0100, János Farkas wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Sorry for the late response; it is a mess due to the 802 Plenary.
> We discussed "domain" while updating the architecture draft. DetNet
> is 
> chartered for single administrative domain; furthermore, domain is a
> bit 
> overloaded term. That's why it is better to avoid it as much as
> possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> Janos
> 
> 
> On 3/11/2017 1:32 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> > Hi János,
> > 
> > Just one comment about "domain" below.
> > 
> > On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 19:01 +0100, János Farkas wrote:
> > > Hi Jouni,
> > > 
> > > I've made some changes to the draft. The attached pdf indicates
> > > them.
> > > I've updated the xml version where you moved Balazs' text to be
> > > main
> > > text. I hope i did not mess xml versioning.
> > > (the commented pdf is one version earlier)
> > > 
> > > Well, I did not make any dramatic change.
> > > I'd highlight two:
> > > a) replaced "data plane protocol" with "data plane solution". We
> > > are
> > > working on solution as reflected by "sol" in the file name ;-). I
> > > mean,
> > > a protocol is rather above the data plane, e.g., in the control
> > > plane.
> > > b) replaced "domain" with alternatives. DetNet is for single
> > > domain.
> > > Actually, domain is an overloaded term: administrative domain,
> > > etc.,
> > > better to avoid.
> > 
> > I agree with you. I made some editorial changes before to align
> > with
> > the draft-ietf-detnet-architecture document, where "DetNet domain"
> > is
> > used. But I've checked again and it's true that domain is merely
> > used
> > in the terminology section and not really in the text. Norm, maybe
> > you
> > can consider removing "DetNet domain" from the arch document
> > (terminology section) so both docs are consistent.
> > 
> > I'm reviewing the draft. I'll soon send some updates (I expect them
> > to
> > be just minor things/editorial).
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Carlos
> > 
> > > I highlighted one thing in the pdw, which I did not implement in
> > > the
> > > xml:
> > > "frame replication and elimination"
> > > The architecture document uses "packet replication and
> > > elimination",
> > > which I think would be better to be used in this doc too; except
> > > for
> > > he
> > > cases when we explicitly refer to 802.1CB.
> > > This appears multiple places, another variant: ""frame
> > > replication
> > > and
> > > duplicate elimination".
> > > If there is agreement then we could make the change.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Janos
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 3/10/2017 5:55 AM, 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
> 
>