Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Updates to dp-sol

I would think some additional clear cut separation in text is needed as you pointed out. Major restructuring.. i do not think so.\

- JOuni

> On May 29, 2017, at 5:13 AM, Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
>  
> A general observation: we may need a new structure for the draft.
>  
> In the first discussions we have concluded to use practically the same encapsulation for the DetNet flows namely PseudoWires.
> So we were able to use the MS-PW analogy to describe the DetNet data plane. Practically all statements were valid for both
> PSN types (i) IP and (ii) MPLS.
>  
> However, in Chicago based on the feedbacks and our discussions we have changed the proposed data plane using (i) native
> encapsulation in case of IPv6 and (ii) using PW in case of MPLS. This is something we have to reflect in the text.
>  
> There are numerous examples where we refer explicitly to PWs, making confusion with respect to scenarios where PSN = IPv6.
> One good example for that is the definition of PREF in the terminology section:
>    PREF          A Packet Replication and Elimination Function (PREF)
>                  does the replication and elimination processig of
>                  DetNet flow packets in DA-T-PE or DA-S-PE nodes.  The
>                  replication function is essentially the existing 1+1
>                  protection mechanism.  The elimination function reuses
>                  and extends the existing [RFC3985] PseudoWire
>                  sequencing provided duplicate detection mechanism to
>                  operate over multiple (separate) PseudoWires that are
>                  sub-flows of a compound DetNet flow.
> This text is not valid for IPv6. And there are many similar examples all over in the document. I have found practically problematic
> text in each chapter. Including Abstract, Introduction, etc. etc.
>  
> So, should we reconsider the structure? Any thoughts?
>  
> Cheers
> Bala’zs
>  
> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:detnet-dp-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Norman Finn
> Sent: 2017. május 27. 1:58
> To: detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] Updates to dp-sol
>  
> I've checked in an updated draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol-01.  Changes:
> 
>  - Fixed a few typos/spelling.
> 
>  - Expanded introduction to include IPv6 encaps.
> 
>  - Edited time section.  It assumed that PTP is normally a DetNet flow, and I claim that that is not the normal case, at all.  Also, the first choice (now the second) needed a little clarification.
> 
>  - Added sentence in bidirectional about no special bidirectional feature except for same path.
> 
>  - Small edit to Class of Service.
> 
>  - Added 7.6 Layer 2 addressing considerations.
> 
>  - Added 802.1Q to references.
> 
>  - Added myself to authors list.
> 
> All of the above are, IMO, covered by what we talked about on Tuesday except maybe the introduction (which should be non-controversial) and the synchronization stuff (which could conceivably be controversial).  Feel free to challenge what you don't like, of course.
> 
> -- Norm
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> Detnet-dp-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt