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

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Sun, 16 December 2018 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 CD5B1131023 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 02:10:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 i0kMkWtPhaQv for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 02:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0485913101C for <detnet@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 02:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id v5so7339442lfe.7 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 02:10:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=np8ZC/6dAFxZAbbS78hOyCs0SqXKjyDNzFEmxMCY1Aw=; b=cRUFsQqXQEr2BtnATQMWcG+4JX22uv0YkZAjIQox+7ngL4mPUHSl/cQrVLZzQxvHLw tIPgirfRvkGUDEWr9bjUmQFEkSr2PGwbi8Svo9JdH4/AS84jbeEYKVIzSPiL4AIzaAK/ SXd3YjaIO33eMdCENj7DBB2Vssro5wYpf17McOiVuYwzgn7Ci/bSBfbsF/6NJysL60wY Rt47haYeuPEZqpJDqkuEDkKtPnuRvBKri2YPbjT6hWoYH10zBY+RZrYUHqM5ZCpAq0l0 waA/4zqc+NYLzjmA8czzRRhPMTkxO/hKz5JQde2ynDYz5vd3uVOsmmXfe6ac2e5MIbUJ eDDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=np8ZC/6dAFxZAbbS78hOyCs0SqXKjyDNzFEmxMCY1Aw=; b=W7eOSR1EBG1MV8oFhcLn8UWZU4ZszpCGSNr/AFWD6JyPeIN9cHFX2G7abLV22tlGSf dEMCbuShTIRC4G7j4kW3TT7TTHDTfODgyZiwh8OY3LevrTTkQt93EoSK1J3zHQQkRMMz 8fYgohDPo8Yt46UtjX3T0MVjOASSN1y/xAj51t8UfCYKlsKyUzvGq+O7Q11vYQjHfvsb yqxP41DedsDwR+huiM7yKBa9dqHzB1H37szIoxPZw4BRkZ7ORvWAxhX4lsoGL/h/eL5Z IsEhoLULmcwTjuxO8cDWtEKjW6OLEYZWnGT6oCtEjaj2aLKkaN2c1x0qIwcvXOhUVTKg X47g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaag+Iilf3BVFTT8QxyCWLWvb4zOwIGoJ4HCOEI1xrROQ94OiUV vc3YehmvlVCaeqX/6bA6S+k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WDjursa30vL1czOK9KdKdMsHKAfm9EFW4opIf5XDxoY64Oy5/XOiRcgizK3OLhkzVtZgOtRg==
X-Received: by 2002:a19:690d:: with SMTP id e13mr5058378lfc.84.1544954999173; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 02:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f150:c66:257c:8626:301c? ([2001:1bc8:101:f150:c66:257c:8626:301c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k63sm1971987lfe.13.2018.12.16.02.09.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Dec 2018 02:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR0601MB1408FD124CDE12A8B4980100C4A30@CY1PR0601MB1408.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:09:56 +0200
Cc: "jouni@gmail.com" <jouni@gmail.com>, "Maik Seewald (maseewal)" <maseewal@cisco.com>, Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, János Farkas <janos.farkas@ericsson.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CD66AEF5-1B47-4195-9302-E89609EB1043@gmail.com>
References: <CY1PR0601MB1408FD124CDE12A8B4980100C4A30@CY1PR0601MB1408.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Grossman, Ethan A." <eagros@dolby.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/DwjCoOS-Dz3hY7x1VkeWlEISsLM>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft Comments - Cellular Radio and Industrial M2M
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: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:10:04 -0000

Hi Ethan,

See my comments inline:

> On 16 Dec 2018, at 7.03, Grossman, Ethan A. <eagros@dolby.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jouni, Maik, Balazs, Janos (as DetNet Use Cases draft section authors),
>  
> Please help me out here – I have three remaining IESG review comments that are domain specific and I couldn’t deduce answers for, as follows. Please send me some text.  
>  
> Thanks,
> Ethan (as DetNet Use Cases draft editor).
>  
> Jouni, Maik: 
> * Section 6.1.5
>  
> 3GPP networks have some form of admission control to get access to these time sensitive streams. I think that it is important to mention that here 

I think 3GPP bearer level admission control is not that trivial. Transport connections for fronthauls are established and managed separately from what happens at the bearer level i.e., they are more or less managed due their static nature. 

For the mid/backhaul to my recollection(!) the (standardized) admission control was based radio resources per se, not the transport network level. That means there is a possibility the admission control check could succeed at the 3GPP bearer level but then fail or resource availability assumptions fail at the transport network level. My data might be outdated what has happened past 6 months in 3GPP regarding this (ref e.g., slicing and up/cp separation but that is IMHO more for later sections under 6.x to discuss). I would not add any further text here.


>  
> * Section 6.2.1.
>  
> How does CPRI fit the narrative here for the fronthaul? Do you think it falls under the proprietary protocol and framing category?

Definitely. CPRI does not aim for inter-vendor interoperability in its own specifications. IMHO no need to mention CPRI here.

- Jouni


>  
> Balazs, Janos: 
> * Section 7.4
>  
> What does burstless mean (especially in the context of low packet loss)?
>  
> ----------------------------------------------
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet