Re: [Detnet] Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft Comments - Cellular Radio and Industrial M2M

[János Farkas <[e-mail]>]

I just tried to resolve the concern around burstless.

Actually, the numbers may not be right.

Checking IEC/IEEE 60802 contributions
https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/iec-ieee-60802-tsn-profile-for-industrial-automation/

Use Cases: 
http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2018/60802-industrial-use-cases-0918-v13.pdf
and traffic type characterization: 
http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2018/60802-ademaj-traffic-type-characterization-1118-v01.pdf
indicate that the most stringent requirement is zero loss.
The next one is how many consecutive packets may be lost
There are more relaxed cases.

This section is: 7.4.  Industrial M2M Asks

Maybe we should focus on the stringent cases.

What about updating the bullet to:

"Low packet loss (e.g., zero, limited number of consecutive packets)"

?

Regards,
Janos



On 12/18/2018 8:31 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote:
>
> Thanks Janos,
>
> Doesn’t 0.1-1% sound like an awful lot of packet loss?
>
> Do I understand correctly that you mean:
>
> "Low packet loss (0.1-1 % of packets can be lost, but only a bounded 
> number of consecutive packets can be lost)"
>
> I guess I still don’t exactly understand the intent, can you please 
> clarify?
> Thanks, and sorry for being dense here.
>
> Ethan.
>
> *From:*János Farkas <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:21 AM
> *To:* Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Maik Seewald (maseewal) <[e-mail]>; 
> Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Suresh 
> Krishnan <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft Comments - 
> Cellular Radio and Industrial M2M
>
> Hi Ethan,
>
> Maybe it is not a god phrase, but the intention with the phrase that 
> the loss should be burstless was that consecutive packets should not 
> be lost.
> Perhaps the maximum consecutive loss tolerance parameter describes it 
> better in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-02 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Ddetnet-2Dflow-2Dinformation-2Dmodel-2D02&d=DwMD-g&c=lI8Zb6TzM3d1tX4iEu7bpg&r=ZcHC6wX_gDwPDcfMaFNZiQ&m=0W0EQyafQ7HdKxGYDUDOn91m44yUJHQre2QdC0Pq5rI&s=xtlwetwJuYWGjTBmpNfLC8CvvhDk4x1YkRjNDTE0rws&e=>. 
> It is the "maximum    number of consecutive packets whose loss can be 
> tolerated"
>
> Maybe updating the bullet in the use cases draft to:
>
> "Low packet loss (0.1-1 %, limited number of consecutive packets)"
>
> ?
>
> Regards,
> Janos
>
> On 12/16/2018 6:03 AM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote:
>
>     *_Balazs, Janos: _*
>
>     * Section 7.4
>
>     What does burstless mean (especially in the context of low packet
>     loss)?
>