[Detnet] About the comment of separation for draft-TQF

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Thu, 09 November 2023 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C826C14CE47 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 01:05:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0KD0SohkLeSH for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 01:05:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2825C14CF13 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 01:05:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4SQwyg3PjNz4xPG4; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 17:05:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app01.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.136]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3A993q5a070347; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 17:04:27 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 17:04:29 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 17:04:29 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc654ca09dffffffffd9f-d5b08
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202311091704297286438@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: tte@cs.fau.de
Cc: detnet@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 3A993q5a070347
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 654CA0CB.000/4SQwyg3PjNz4xPG4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/-KWmKMolWVy9_ATTCL0wutpGJdw>
Subject: [Detnet] About the comment of separation for draft-TQF
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 09:05:24 -0000

Hi Toerless,

Thanks for your suggestion for TQF document during the session about the separation of orchestration things and forwarding things. 
Yes, the current document contains some long-winded details to provide a complete solution, used for people to understand and judge whether it is necessary, and whether it is the right direction.
Your are correct that it is necessary to split this document.

Both draft-flow-interleaving and draft-tqf are trying some work in the direction of timeslot orchestration. : ) 
But a minor difference of our opinions is that, as I replied to you in the previous mail (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/9ASnvCLBI-kX8A_kHC-gVkqTd4o/
 ),  flow interleaving only on network edge (that may be a special case of TQF) may not effectively avoid traffic conflicts.
Anyway, this is just a minor different opinion. 

Regards,
PSF