[Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 18 February 2021 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6013A0DFE; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:43:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn@ietf.org, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, lberger@labn.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <161363779702.28200.12105605492920770226@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:43:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/1IZzTy9mn94j1ZwMnfgV1pcwWC8>
Subject: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 18 Feb 2021 08:43:17 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Roman's comment is a good one.

Section 1

                         As described in [RFC8939] no DetNet specific
   headers are added to support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding
   sub-layer functions are supported inside the DetNet domain.  [...]

nit: I suggest "so only the forwarding sub-layer functions can be
supported inside the DetNet domain".

Section 4.2

   A TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node implementations must support the Stream

nit: singular/plural mismatch "A TSN-aware IP"/"implementations"

Section 4.4

   Implementations of this document shall use management and control
   information to map a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream.  N:1 mapping
   (aggregating DetNet flows in a single TSN Stream) shall be supported.

I note that in draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls this was a normative
"SHALL be supported" (which was itself the strongest criterion I could
find for that document being standards-track).  Is there a simple
description for what's different between these documents?

Section 9.2

I agree with the other ADs that (most of?) the IEEE references should be
classified as normative.