[Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-06: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 18 February 2021 09:08 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 4F1C33A0E34; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 01:08:37 -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-mpls-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: <161363931724.28226.4690227321627053128@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 01:08:37 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/886Eod6u2RlGImmbeGtTevxaYLQ>
Subject: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-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 09:08:37 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roman's comment is a good one. Section 3 and process d-CWs, S-Labels and F-labels as needed. MPLS DetNet nodes and transit nodes include DetNet forwarding sub-layer functions, support for notably explicit routes, and resources allocation to eliminate (or reduce) congestion loss and jitter. Akin to my remarks on draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls, I'd suggest "notably support for explicit routes, and resource allocation to eliminate (or reduce) congestion loss and jitter". Section 4.2 A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node implementation must support the Sequencing function and the Sequence encode/decode function as defined in Clause 7.4 and 7.6 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] if FRER is used inside the TSN sub-network. [...] A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node implementation must support the Stream splitting function and the Individual recovery function as defined in Clause 7.7 and 7.5 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] when the node is a replication or elimination point for FRER. (nit) I suggest phrasing these as "in order for FRIR to be used inside the TSN sub-network" and "in order for that node to be a replication or elimination point for FRER". The current phrasing implies some surprising causality, as if changing the network's configuration spontaneously imposes a requirement on the node. 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 5 requirements. Note that, as the TSN sub-network is just a portion of the end2end DetNet path (i.e., single hop from MPLS perspective), nit: please write out "end-to-end". In some case it may be challenging to determine some TSN Stream related information. [...] nit: "In some cases".
- [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dra… Balázs Varga A