IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] Alvaro Retana's Yes on draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 19 December 2018 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 0C6341294D0; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:23:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.065, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0dLzJqbQtJBj; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4103130EFC; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:23:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12457; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1545254592; x=1546464192; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xqKHfS7Mfn77jFGmiHvswaA9UEAxZq4UsW9UA1IUE7Q=; b=XgoDArm8cx02sKGh0qQCtQq9eazRKTuLP7Jgaaka7vVREA6LjIWUqSxA f4TI1oD0E2D+I4gWSh5sw2RuI6l7xqEzakPKr4qsfMcPeMsbNoUlnH5nr GWi/7T+8X/wJMyy+LwkaQGezG4NSzaRwiFwLOIVLgU/3VT6nUaRFEgRmV 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AHAACntRpc/4gNJK1kGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwIBAQEBAQsBgQ12gWgng32fN4hthVuBewMIAQGEbAIXglQiNgcNAQMBAQIBAQJtKIU9BiNPBxACAQgOBC0DAgICHxEUAw4BAQQOBYMigR5MAxWmUwWBPIEviAcNgh00jAsXgUA/gTgfgkyCV4JgglIxgiYCiz+EAYZXimozCQKKFoQZgzEYgV6FH4pcj1SKBwIRFIEnJgcqgVZwFWUBgkGCUI4LQTGOZwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,374,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="279345002"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Dec 2018 21:23:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wBJLNB0a012915 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:23:11 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:23:10 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:23:10 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "detnet-chairs@ietf.org" <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Yes on draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AdSXuP6nkrFqrXoQSP+RxuZMnH6z9QAV/CAA//+gN0E=
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:23:10 +0000
Message-ID: <B1A4DA5C-EBC4-4E24-B74A-5CDD410D8FE1@cisco.com>
References: <70f06a054a6c4fa4881ad54d61a0bc2a@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>, <CAMMESswwtODOPgpeGUsVgznV97LX6LqwXc+firnwiNbOUUwMHQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswwtODOPgpeGUsVgznV97LX6LqwXc+firnwiNbOUUwMHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B1A4DA5CEBC44E24B74A5CDD410D8FE1ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Bo_OlyowQXGn5eJdyvbUjos35Ho>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Alvaro Retana's Yes on draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:23:15 -0000

All good then, Alvaro.


Merry Christmas : )

Pascal

Le 19 déc. 2018 à 22:06, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>> a écrit :

Pascal:

Hi!

The document is fine with me…this was just a non-blocking comment to say that I would have preferred one document instead of two…but no change is needed.

Thanks for following up.

Alvaro.


On December 19, 2018 at 11:39:07 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>) wrote:
Hello Alvaro :

I was digging the datatracker and found the following comment from you:
“
Given the close relationship between this document and draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases, I think that it would have been beneficial to produce a single document.  As it stands neither one normatively references the other.

draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-09 says it better:

   The Deterministic Networking Problem Statement
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-problem-statement] introduces Deterministic
   Networking, and Deterministic Networking Use Cases
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] summarizes the need for it.
I’m sorry I cannot remember seeing this comment before, and I could not dig it in my mail client, so I do not know what happened with it.

As it goes, the problem statement precedes the architecture document and cannot really reference it normatively.
On the other hand the problem statement is a consequence of the use case draft so it is heavily based on it.

Still there is a forward note that references it, so we do have a reference.
                 Forward note: The DetNet Architecture
   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] is the document produced by the DetNet
   WG to describe that model.


But in general when we mention a DetNet architecture we present it as an abstract architecture to be defined as opposed to work already done, so we abstained to have a reference to the architecture draft.

More than that seems artificial and I’m tempted to leave things as is. If you think it is important then I’m OK add a sentence or modify the one quoted above in the next editions.

Please let us know if that’s OK?

Pascal

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email