Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05
Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com> Wed, 18 July 2018 21:26 UTC
Return-Path: <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.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 E7447131060 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=IL9rLm+7; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com header.b=mvelW2hH
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 dphGBGkGHRzt for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26C4D130FAB for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1531949208; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=bLf7wRAo5Aq5gX6jSIcmDeZCMO/8RcQ9NqzI0ofj6Zg=; b=IL9rLm+78D/fZe4qCqUeN4t7n6e0t2c5KO2Xg0EUM2QzeEPxvCXG92rDXFR0LzjY IC9exowXiWTNXBTbsBBhSqNJvCjLyGnnAQN2Dz2AgF/AVnr8sZnH124kx7eLrohM cJLGOG4MAfmv278Ht3zlqiNI0dbV8cpHpsypX7cEYtA=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-1dfff700000059c2-11-5b4fb09846b7
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.116]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 53.AB.22978.890BF4B5; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:26:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) by ESESBMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.170) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:26:47 +0200
Received: from EUR04-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:26:47 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=bLf7wRAo5Aq5gX6jSIcmDeZCMO/8RcQ9NqzI0ofj6Zg=; b=mvelW2hHFC3bYdc16amVmrya2sKYK9A7AFvWw+0JBELGICj/0nSMNdmJ+fhAFdKXSmbA7t8RFp32nwrg6dxPHDjsVaCXCyIeKWYUnyYIaepSCu3cbqPdcsY4bhN6twx84YI7/oT9eLEN6v8aXALABeUMQ4EKGaACgbOPsizJkbY=
Received: from VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.134.6.155) by VI1PR0702MB3741.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.134.3.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.973.14; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:26:46 +0000
Received: from VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8821:9b5b:1da:1ae]) by VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8821:9b5b:1da:1ae%2]) with mapi id 15.20.0973.016; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:26:46 +0000
From: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
CC: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05
Thread-Index: AQHT6XE0tqjkYdUZ+EicHpFXe9ZLo6Q9i+eAgB8CLgCAAHN4gIAZ2I6AgAC4xQCACEGeAIADP24AgA5gtoD///n4AIAAPZOAgACQtICAA0stcIAALK0AgAAzqxA=
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:26:46 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1PR0702MB3567B1C356B53A956E0C35B4F2530@VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <99657d22-f9e4-8a1a-27de-6997900f727e@labn.net> <7cc44e35-cbd0-fbdb-95b7-c93ab38ec5d7@gmail.com> <AM3PR07MB4021D464E3E2C4CCAA0883EAC7F0@AM3PR07MB402.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <fee5178f-a1da-53e7-1684-e09ec2bfcb42@gmail.com> <ab532cc6-0552-ecb1-fe3f-09ebce5f6ba9@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363019498B@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <4900e61d-8399-8765-0ecb-181dc3c9ff5a@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936301A79DE@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <ba0c0b74-8d2e-c332-18c6-02a2649cddf0@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936301D75F4@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <61d00506-b546-6c80-044f-b5bdb243ae23@ericsson.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936301D84CF@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <VI1PR0702MB3567FE3D1186992F38378AE3F2530@VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936301E0973@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936301E0973@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:67c:1232:144:119:dde7:fa3:145c]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR0702MB3741; 6:s3xUT9NXhpxHwpIH34xz7SFalzy9HXd/Dj4/e4fIeUSYopWzd6fS6mGIVgcv/vJH+tVzKctYQYyNkxZf2WOCo8Swj0w7qIJhWZAJYC9wNwHb62aR3rjttWArlU/6OYsutEM86NdRt6jpPM5rintHwodfrmD93hVsvKXpqix2h0ctknImv9vYBE78xcJl0IRw1YLekd75bSQ+IiSPYk0BsDTNVYPf9mzwzqusiAoW7wMj1RyohLKcyJ1A9DUdkNlBr8ZOcpIIn+D+TtyFlXZn1BdtfHbRaQJVUQ1W4WOLNlFXMdUZLbvl5jh72msSTT9BU/VV0hTk/Hqxv8DaCwVMiqZTZ71kfnV408I8QTeUIokIGEPMK01qQ7EcNLnRHlenBahTtXD6ytjl3j864xmz6qBLLPC6Q/Z2QV5n9vSvKj8HlY9J3pTYZlQgiAr5m29eVnX3GoojmcKWmV0FzhS6ew==; 5:BCesLE7c9DfatkJDeCkicgQo7VB1wasMT9QjyaKYpdPdFVhCdLF5MmFWsB56FlfQWGAZAmTw3bIyuHtKAM3mmgS8kgwQ6k2EC1vM8Es9++bKS7dF49+rGT+UTjD/yNe78ZwXRsUauYTAmrBcRexM4kJDAdKRxD5iqeoLSSqAg0I=; 7:cQCpOKTY6Ar3Ld+ARHM8H8yaLGqAVefgz0iJLNdbOW95Dp3e/Kma3v8UpCqW1hJAqQmvSjq4lpJ2d8kj/8+cmd1Um/QP4CGwyITK/MyvsnvBitUSmuEgPn7TrlD742aATkpqJXaPQNicX+mSKGwYXQKk/0k0XqeuAhSkbJzoVaiCZoFApkLJNGXb3XexZtlhRIPI8rFqcAw3wOgrK9Pc3hShWaG79DvRJfq6Cbo4Zer26S5UHp6CkPz7VfHK3CEp
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e72a2e44-52fa-4094-9ad6-08d5ecf52a48
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652040)(8989117)(5600067)(711020)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990107)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR0702MB3741;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR0702MB3741:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR0702MB37413ED6F0F7B00524F1455CF2530@VI1PR0702MB3741.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(37575265505322)(28532068793085)(278428928389397)(21748063052155)(170963831197625)(248295561703944)(56004941905204);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(3231311)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:VI1PR0702MB3741; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR0702MB3741;
x-forefront-prvs: 0737B96801
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(366004)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(37854004)(51444003)(51914003)(74316002)(6306002)(229853002)(81166006)(446003)(7736002)(236005)(5250100002)(11346002)(478600001)(316002)(966005)(14454004)(86362001)(72206003)(2900100001)(8676002)(8936002)(16200700003)(4326008)(53936002)(55016002)(99286004)(81156014)(54896002)(9686003)(53946003)(6246003)(5660300001)(6436002)(7696005)(97736004)(476003)(14444005)(606006)(6116002)(790700001)(6506007)(256004)(486006)(2906002)(102836004)(68736007)(46003)(25786009)(186003)(105586002)(33656002)(76176011)(53546011)(106356001)(6916009)(93886005)(569006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR0702MB3741; H:VI1PR0702MB3567.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: rbgS3mSD0XxhVc2ustmYymGFwHuSxmC8QlY6AP1xZKTE/EMuy/kVbbNua/rjL0TQJmx5v2VM38yeuHUq3XhIBMyq8Ta+Wmhf/DHY5xAV/q+Rxu7dOu/ncWpxcskOg62vyK9s4ZUzQwGziBLzm8USGskUsGJYmWeuNId4Js8rYmK3MRd0kQbubM/PXXHaKyoho+MnpokyP6ckgq0cUwX/DJhqnGHcNajqSoQHmBxDVnHhgjodtOG4zW3McmKsOR0i7dsqLFq+LbELxAvFUaiwpcLtM3b+WVJmC3OnWEw3rIMmq3SS5gzU596pJPsD7iVjMSpAu2bQVsrh32h4R8+CGdiwacWvkQKNjA5TcPjZ38Q=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_VI1PR0702MB3567B1C356B53A956E0C35B4F2530VI1PR0702MB3567_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e72a2e44-52fa-4094-9ad6-08d5ecf52a48
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jul 2018 21:26:46.2555 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR0702MB3741
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA02Sa0hTYRjHe885246rwdua+aBptRBU2jQpWih2oUICNbpAaJjTnVTUTXam aJhKGXnFC5vonBm4MrXUamJGH1LMtFIh64NGkJd5xbxgiaiRZ2dB337P+/8//J/n4aVJ6TOB O52oNTB6rTpZLhRT1dc6DIqqtoioAIvRU7VsrqdUGys11CkitKK6igy1WteJi0SkOFjDJCem M3r/kBhxwshXC5k6VSDOaPi5SOSivhmXQuRCAz4Kyx15gkIkpqX4HYIFWx7JF78RjNhnnYWV gDl7npArKFxGQm/blojrl2IjAdN9rrxrHEH1wLqAE4RYCaYR87aJpmXYF8Zqz3LPJN4P881b JMd78Dnoq6skOJbh87BpMTkCZLgQQf3dFkcAhb2hpadDyLEEx8DcLBfMhf0SQu+w3WFyweHw aN3oCEZ4L6x9eErwaW4wOllH8JtisL4ZInl2hdmJPwKej8OTmnyKZ0/4XFeEuADAb0WwYF91 CgpYMpmczWFQYZoheVM/gueLU07hMKwMNYr4Ka7D0kS5M1kHa7Z5im+oRWActCFe8IKmkjGq DAWY/5uWZx0UNHYKzY61d0N/9SRl3j4luX3K1tf+vOUgGIvGRDz7wD1Lrej/94dI1IRcWYaN TYkPDFQy+sQ4ltVplVrG8AJtf6Iu20bAKzQ7fbobYRrJd0nSKiKipAJ1OpuZ0o2AJuUySddi eJRUolFn3mL0uhv6tGSG7UYeNCV3k6jCX0ZKcbzawCQxTCqj/6cStIt7LvJM/5HjoTipfR/U XGJu7b06qPVW4nG3zpgzwwqv4vHCgJ3sl6zsE/laybHaAZ/NyppizR00mlH+8Wa7oSfLz31x NU+wHqYJibxiT5/SrS3lXHh8gG7PXg77rtqhKdpXqrP2lT9Yi/401eBbcj/4dtKl2DisGi3N +kYeirYEXablFJugPuJH6ln1Xx+n/S9AAwAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/EzwlG5VCq6GZTWQuRWmSabKm4mU>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 18 Jul 2018 21:26:59 -0000
Both “congestion protection” and “congestion loss protection” work for me. Note that the architecture document is quite populated with the term “congestion protection”. I do not know the other documents by heart. So it would be a bit of a change. I’d like to have the group’s opinion before making such a change, e.g., any objections? Thanks, Janos From: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 8:19 PM To: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com> Cc: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05 Hi Janos, That text works nicely. In briefly talking to Lou, a related suggestion surfaced: “congestion protection” -> “congestion loss protection” where possible (may need to be abbreviated in the Figure) . This change would make it clearer that the primary focus is protection from losses caused by congestion as opposed to protection from all congestion. DetNet should be able to tolerate some modest congestion (e.g., in nodes that don’t have reserved DetNet resources) as long as delivery is reliable and timely. Thanks, --David From: Janos Farkas [mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 11:45 AM To: Black, David Cc: DetNet WG Subject: RE: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05 Hi David, This implies updating the definition of the DetNet service layer, e.g., to: DetNet service layer The layer at which A DetNet Service, e.g., service protection is provided. The definition of the DetNet transport layer remains the same: DetNet transport layer The layer that optionally provides congestion protection for DetNet flows over paths provided by the underlying network. Regards, Janos From: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com<mailto:David.Black@dell.com>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 3:21 PM To: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com<mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>> Cc: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05 Don’t use “congestion protection” in the definitions for both levels. Thanks, --David From: János Farkas [mailto:janos.farkas@ericsson.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 10:43 PM To: Black, David Cc: DetNet WG Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05 Thank you David! I think we are set. :-) You got a point, we should update "DetNet service layer is the layer at which A DetNet Service, such as congestion or service protection is provided." to "DetNet service layer is the layer at which A DetNet Service, such as congestion protection and/or service protection is provided." in the definitions as well to make it clear. Thanks, Janos On 7/16/2018 3:03 AM, Black, David wrote: Moving the only two open items to the top … -- Section 4 > We could add some introductory text to 4.1 or 4.1.1, for instance: > The functionality needed for DetNet (Section 3) are implemented in the DetNet layer which comprises the DetNet service layer and the DetNet transport layer. > The DetNet service layer functions rely on flow identification and sequencing. The DetNet transport layer function may rely on flow identification. > > What do you think? I prefer functional (what it does) characterization to mechanistic (how it works) characterization in an overview, e.g., excerpting from what I originally wrote: · The DetNet Service layer provides timely reliable in-order DetNet flow delivery to applications that use DetNet. · The DetNet Transport layer insulates DetNet flows from interference by network mechanisms, primarily queuing and routing I understand the principle. What about just copying the two definitions here: DetNet service layer is the layer at which A DetNet Service, such as congestion or service protection is provided. DetNet transport layer optionally provides congestion protection for DetNet flows over paths provided by the underlying network. David> Yes, that works, although I don’t think “congestion” was meant to be included in the first definition … Many real-time networks rely on physical rings or chains of two-port devices, with a relatively simple ring control protocol. How does a “ring control protocol” control “chains”? Suggest: “ring control protocol” -> “control protocol” Also, are paired chains between common endpoints intended, or a more general notion of chains? This text refers to typical factory deployment, which is chain or ring. It seems better to keep “ring control protocol” because they are often very different from generic control protocols applicable to mesh networks. Would flipping chain and ring resolve your concern? Many real-time networks rely on physical chains or rings of two-port devices, with a relatively simple ring control protocol. [David>] It feels like “ring control protocol” is an important phrase to retain. In the original text, would it be reasonable to add “(applies to both rings and chains)” to the end of the sentence? Well, I guess the point is that there are many specific ring protocols, but we are looking for a generic solution. What about deleting "chains" from the sentence? David> Yes, if the sentence is all about rings, it’s clear. Thanks, --David From: János Farkas [mailto:janos.farkas@ericsson.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 7:25 PM To: Black, David Cc: DetNet WG Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05 Hi David, Please see in-line. Thank you! Janos On 7/6/2018 11:50 PM, Black, David wrote: -- Bridged path definition > Or should we do something else? > There is only one occurrence of "bridged path" in the text in brackets. That sounds like a better suggestion – change that occurrence and remove the definition of “bridged path” from the draft. That occurrence is in Section 4.1.1: Congestion protection The DetNet transport layer provides congestion protection. See Section 4.5. The actual queuing and shaping mechanisms are typically provided by underlying subnet layers, these can be closely associated with the means of providing paths for DetNet flows (e.g., MPLS LSPs or bridged paths), the path and the congestion protection are conflated in this figure. Perhaps: (e.g., MPLS LSPs or bridged paths) -> (MPLS LSPs or other network paths) or just delete the entire parenthetical example. OK. Let's just delete the entire parenthetical example. -- Section 4 > We could add some introductory text to 4.1 or 4.1.1, for instance: > The functionality needed for DetNet (Section 3) are implemented in the DetNet layer which comprises the DetNet service layer and the DetNet transport layer. > The DetNet service layer functions rely on flow identification and sequencing. The DetNet transport layer function may rely on flow identification. > > What do you think? I prefer functional (what it does) characterization to mechanistic (how it works) characterization in an overview, e.g., excerpting from what I originally wrote: * The DetNet Service layer provides timely reliable in-order DetNet flow delivery to applications that use DetNet. * The DetNet Transport layer insulates DetNet flows from interference by network mechanisms, primarily queuing and routing I understand the principle. What about just copying the two definitions here: DetNet service layer is the layer at which A DetNet Service, such as congestion or service protection is provided. DetNet transport layer optionally provides congestion protection for DetNet flows over paths provided by the underlying network. > Should we also rearrange, e.g., indent the text after Figure 2 such that > Packet sequencing, Duplicate elimination, Flow replication, Flow merging, Packet encoding, and Packet decoding get under Service layer > and > Congestion protection and Explicit routes get under Transport layer? No, I don’t think that’s necessary – Figure 2 provides sufficient structure. OK. Plus a few more minor comments inline … Thanks, --David From: János Farkas [mailto:janos.farkas@ericsson.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 2:15 PM To: Black, David Cc: DetNet WG Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05 Hi David, Thank you very much for your review and comments! Please see in-line. On 6/29/2018 4:10 PM, Black, David wrote: The -06 version of this draft is much improved over the -05 version – lots of diligent work by the authors is evident and appreciated. I have two minor content concerns and some smaller editorial items. ** Content -- Section 2.2 The definition of “bridged path” looks like a definition of “bridged forwarding” – the definition needs to encompass the notion of a path that involves more than one bridge. bridged path A VLAN bridge uses the VLAN ID and the destination MAC address to select the outbound port hence the path for a frame. You are right, it looks like the emphasis is on bridge forwarding rather than path. However, the superposition of the outbound ports provides a path, which was tried to be captured by "hence the path". The idea was to keep it simple not dive into the details, which are not necessary in this document. Would it be good to update to: bridged path A VLAN bridge uses the VLAN ID and the destination MAC address to select the outbound port. The superposition of the outbound ports is the path for a frame. ? Or should we do something else? There is only one occurrence of "bridged path" in the text in brackets. -- Section 4 Figure 2 in Section 4.1.1 introduces the Detnet service and transport layers. The associated text quickly dives into explaining the functionality in those layers, but it would be helpful to start with an initial high level description of each of those layers that helps motivate their separation. It appears that: - The DetNet Service layer provides timely reliable in-order DetNet flow delivery to applications that use DetNet. A DetNet flow at the top of the DetNet Service layer may or may not be a compound flow at the bottom of that layer. - The DetNet Transport layer insulates DetNet flows (at the bottom of the DetNet Service layer) from interference by network mechanisms, primarily queuing and routing, where congestion is an indication of queueing interference. A DetNet flow at the top of the DetNet Transport layer may or may not be a member flow that is part of a compound flow, depending on what is done in the DetNet Service layer. You are right, section 4 jumps into the details without much of an introduction. I guess we had a kind of chicken and egg problem here. Figure 4 provides a higher level view than Figure 2. However, Figure 4 captures different aspects, dives into the details of data plane options. So, it seems better to keep the order. We could add some introductory text to 4.1 or 4.1.1, for instance: The functionality needed for DetNet (Section 3) are implemented in the DetNet layer which comprises the DetNet service layer and the DetNet transport layer. The DetNet service layer functions rely on flow identification and sequencing. The DetNet transport layer function may rely on flow identification. What do you think? Should we also rearrange, e.g., indent the text after Figure 2 such that Packet sequencing, Duplicate elimination, Flow replication, Flow merging, Packet encoding, and Packet decoding get under Service layer and Congestion protection and Explicit routes get under Transport layer? There’s a related paragraph of text between Figures 3 and 4 in Section 4.1.2, but it doesn’t provide useful intuition about which functionality belongs in which layer. ** Editorial -- Section 2.1 “expected” seems off in the definition of reservation: reservation The set of resources allocated between a source and one or more destinations through transit nodes and subnets associated with a DetNet flow, to provide the expected DetNet Service. Suggest either “to provide the provisioned DetNet Service to that flow” I like this one, will update to this one. or “to provide the specified DetNet Service to that flow.” -- Section 3.1 o An upper bound on out-of-order packet delivery. It is worth noting that some DetNet applications are unable to tolerate any out-of-order delivery. Is that a sequence bound or a time bound or both? I suspect that a sequence bound (maximum degree of reordering in a flow, independent of flow rate) was intended. An analogous clarification would be helpful in section 3.2.2.1 . It is intentionally kept high level in the architecture draft. Details are to be provided by the flow information model draft. Please see my previous mail: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/AWG2eemg_AWsvF2FwtREyd_xtC8. [David>] OK. -- Section 3.2.3 I don’t understand “defined” in: Even the use of redundant paths through a network defined, e.g., by [RFC6372] do not eliminate the chances of packet loss. Was “e.g., as defined by [RFC6372],” intended? Yes, this was the intention, will update to this one. Many real-time networks rely on physical rings or chains of two-port devices, with a relatively simple ring control protocol. How does a “ring control protocol” control “chains”? Suggest: “ring control protocol” -> “control protocol” Also, are paired chains between common endpoints intended, or a more general notion of chains? This text refers to typical factory deployment, which is chain or ring. It seems better to keep “ring control protocol” because they are often very different from generic control protocols applicable to mesh networks. Would flipping chain and ring resolve your concern? Many real-time networks rely on physical chains or rings of two-port devices, with a relatively simple ring control protocol. [David>] It feels like “ring control protocol” is an important phrase to retain. In the original text, would it be reasonable to add “(applies to both rings and chains)” to the end of the sentence? Well, I guess the point is that there are many specific ring protocols, but we are looking for a generic solution. What about deleting "chains" from the sentence? Explicit routes can be established various ways, established various -> established in various OK. This is irrespective of the distribution method used, also applies to service protection over explicit routes. used, also -> used, and also OK. -- Figure 5 (Section 4.1.3) The UNI acronym is introduced without expansion or definition – please correct that, e.g., by defining UNI in Section 2.1. DetNet-UNI is there among the definitions. It seems enough to me. [David>] That’s fine – I overlooked that definition, sorry. -- Figure 9 (Section 4.7.2) I think I understand what’s going on, but the use of “add/remove” in the figure should be explained in associated text. What about updating the sentence above Figure 9 to: A packet with corresponding Flow-IDs is illustrated in Figure 9, which also indicates where Flow-ID can be added or removed. [David>] Sure, with one minor edit: “where Flow-ID” -> “where each Flow-ID” OK. Thanks, --David Thank you! Janos From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of János Farkas Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 9:09 PM To: Lou Berger; Stewart Bryant; detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org> >> DetNet WG Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-05 Dear all, Off-line discussions among Lou, Stewart, and authors followed the discussions to properly address the WGLC comments, including the detailed comments. A new revision of the draft has been uploaded: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-06. In addition to the changes already described in this thread, the following bigger changes have been made to the draft: Section 2.1 Terms used in this document Some definitions refined as suggested by the detailed comments New definitions have been added: "allocation Resources are dedicated to support a DetNet flow. Depending on an implementation, the resource may be reused by non- DetNet flows when it is not used by the DetNet flow. PEF A Packet Elimination Function (PEF) eliminates duplicate copies of packets to prevent excess packets flooding the network or duplicate packets being sent out of the DetNet domain. PEF can be implemented by an edge node, a relay node, or an end system. PRF A Packet Replication Function (PRF) replicates DetNet flow packets and forwards them to one or more next hops in the DetNet domain. The number of packet copies sent to each next hop is a DetNet flow specific parameter at the node doing the replication. PRF can be implemented by an edge node, a relay node, or an end system. PREOF Collective name for Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions. POF A Packet Ordering Function (POF) re-orders packets within a DetNet flow that are received out of order. This function can be implemented by an edge node, a relay node, or an end system. DetNet service proxy Maps between App-flows and DetNet flows. bridged path A VLAN bridge uses the VLAN ID and the destination MAC address to select the outbound port hence the path for a frame." Section 3.1 Primary goals defining the DetNet QoS A new QoS aspect has been added: "o An upper bound on out-of-order packet delivery. It is worth noting that some DetNet applications are unable to tolerate any out-of-order delivery." The 3rd paragraph on loss on page 8 after the bullet list has been extended to: "After congestion, the most important contributions to packet loss are typically from random media errors and equipment failures. Service protection is the name for the mechanisms used by DetNet to address these losses. The mechanisms employed are constrained by the requirement to meet the users' latency requirements. Packet replication and elimination (Section 3.2.2) and packet encoding (Section 3.2.2.3) are described in this document to provide service protection; others may be found. For instance, packet encoding can be used to provide service protection against random media errors, packet replication and elimination can be used to provide service protection against equipment failures. This mechanism distributes the contents of DetNet flows over multiple paths in time and/or space, so that the loss of some of the paths does need not cause the loss of any packets." 3.2.2. Service Protection Service protection is used as a more generic term. Introductory text added: "Service protection aims to mitigate or eliminate packet loss due to equipment failures, random media and/or memory faults. These types of packet loss can be greatly reduced by spreading the data over multiple disjoint forwarding paths. Various service protection methods are described in [RFC6372], e.g., 1+1 linear protection. This section describes the functional details of an additional method in Section 3.2.2.2, which can be implemented as described in Section 3.2.2.3 or as specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] in order to provide 1+n hitless protection. The appropriate service protection mechanism depends on the scenario and the requirements." New sub-section added: "3.2.2.1. In-Order Delivery Out-of-order packet delivery can be a side effect of service protection. Packets delivered out-of-order impact the amount of buffering needed at the destination to properly process the received data. Such packets also influence the jitter of a flow. The DetNet service includes maximum allowed misordering as a constraint. Zero misordering would be a valid service constraint to reflect that the end system(s) of the flow cannot tolerate any out-of-order delivery. Service protection may provide a mechanism to support in-order delivery." 3.2.2.2. Packet Replication and Elimination New bullet added as the last one: "o The Packet Ordering Function (POF) uses the sequencing information to re-order a DetNet flow's packets that are received out of order." New sentence added after the bullet list: "The order in which a node applies the PEF and the PRF to a DetNet flow is implementation specific." 2nd paragraph after the bullet list has been updated to: "Some service protection mechanisms rely on switching from one flow to another when a failure of a flow is detected. Contrarily, packet replication and elimination combines the DetNet member flows sent along multiple different paths, and performs a packet-by-packet selection of which to discard, e.g., based on sequencing information." 3.2.3. Explicit routes Out-of-order aspect added to the first paragraph, which is about distributed routing: "Furthermore, out-of-order packet delivery can be a side effect of route changes." New sentence added to the 3rd paragraph: "Explicit routes can be established various ways, e.g., with RSVP-TE [RFC3209], with Segment Routing (SR) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], via a Software Defined Networking approach [RFC7426], with IS-IS [RFC7813], etc." New paragraph added: "Out-of-order packet delivery can be a side effect of distributing a single flow over multiple paths especially when there is a change from one path to another when combining the flow. This is irrespective of the distribution method used, also applies to service protection over explicit routes. As described in Section 3.2.2.1, out-of-order packets influence the jitter of a flow and impact the amount of buffering needed to process the data; therefore, DetNet service includes maximum allowed misordering as a constraint. The use of explicit routes helps to provide in-order delivery because there is no immediate route change with the network topology, but the changes are plannable as they are between the different explicit routes." 4.1.1. Representative Protocol Stack Model "Explicit routes" have been added to Figure 2 with the corresponding explanation: "Explicit routes The DetNet transport layer provides mechanisms to ensure that fixed paths are provided for DetNet flows. These explicit paths avoid the impact of network convergence." Section 4.11 Connected islands vs. networks of v05 has been deleted because it was just a leftover from early drafts on what DetNet WG should do; which are covered by the charter anyways. References have been cleaned up and brought up-to-date. Refinements have been implemented in the draft according to Lou's detailed comments. They are not listed here because they are minor changes. Best regards, Janos On 6/12/2018 2:48 PM, Lou Berger wrote: Balázs, Thanks for the response -- please see below. ---------- On June 12, 2018 4:07:35 AM Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com><mailto:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com> wrote: Hi Lou, Thanks for the comments. See reactions inline. Document update in progress. Cheers Bala'zs -----Original Message----- From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: 2018. június 1. 22:42 To: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org><mailto:detnet@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-detnet-architecture@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-detnet-architecture@ietf.org> Subject: [Detnet] Promised comments on draft-ietf-detnet-architecture Hi, I have a number of high level comments on the document that I'd like to raise below. I also have a number of more editorial/specific comments that I'd like to review directly with the authors and then have them report back on changes -- if any turn out to be more substantive discussions from the author's perspective, I'll raise these on the list separately. ... - WRT Section 4.4.3, I think the inclusion of a distributed control plane in the "Network Plane" is inconsistent with other functional definitions and conflates where a function resides from the actual function and that whether control is implemented in a fully centralized, fully distributed or some hybrid form doesn't fundamentally change the control function's role -- therefore I think the sections 4.4.2 and .3 should be revised accordingly [Balázs Varga A] Agree in principal. Let's discuss the details. Okay - I'll work with you off line and we can report back the results/proposed changes. - In several places it's not clear that DetNet service is always a L3 service which is controlled using L3 identifiers, i.e., IP addresses -- this is true even in the MPLS service case and the TSN over MPLS case. I think this is an important point to be clear on in the document. [Balázs Varga A] I am not sure. DetNet service is always provided over a L3 network (IP or MPLS), that is fine. However the service itself can be L2 or L3. In case of TSN Ethernet frames are transported, so it is a L2 service. In case of IP end systems IP packets are transported so it is a L3 service. Humm - While I agree that DetNet is providing an (enhanced) L2VPN service, it is not itself providing control or service of L2 devices -- this is TSN's job. The fact that DetNet is all about behavior of L3 nodes (i.e., IP and PW/MPLS) and not L2 nodes (i.e., TSN bridges) is something the architecture should make unambiguous. Thanks, Lou Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Lou _______________________________________________ detnet mailing list detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet _______________________________________________ detnet mailing list detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet On 6/12/2018 6:27 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: Dear Bala'zs Thank you your for your consideration of these points. I will just pick up a few that need some further thought: DetNet transit node A node operating at the DetNet transport layer, that utilizes link layer and/or network layer switching across multiple links and/or sub-networks to provide paths for DetNet service layer functions. Optionally provides congestion protection over those paths. An MPLS LSR is an example of a DetNet transit node. SB> In that example it would have to be a DetNet enable/aware LSR. An SB> ordinary LSR would not know anything about DetNet. [Balázs Varga A] No, A DetNet aware LSR would be a relay node (S-PE). I think the confusion is what "DetNet Transport Layer" means. This technology touches on Transport Layer in the L4 sense, and the Transport Network Layer as in the packet network that carries L3 packets. So I think that we need to clarify whether a DetNet transit node is an S-PE (i.e. a a transit node in the DetNet layer), or a P node (i.e. a transit node that is carrying DetNet packets but could be carrying any sort of MPLS packet) ============ These three techniques can be applied independently, giving eight possible combinations, including none (no DetNet), although some combinations are of wider utility than others. This separation keeps the protocol stack coherent and maximizes interoperability with existing and developing standards in this (IETF) and other Standards Development Organizations. Some examples of typical expected combinations: o Explicit routes plus service protection are exactly the techniques employed by [HSR-PRP]. Explicit routes are achieved by limiting the physical topology of the network, and the sequentialization, replication, and duplicate elimination are facilitated by packet tags added at the front or the end of Ethernet frames. SB> ER can be done virtually as well as physically. RSVP is a type of SB> ER, as is Adj-SID based SR, and we can design other types. [Balázs Varga A] Agree, but these are examples. Statement is for HSR-PRP. So the question is whether we should expand the set of examples, particularly to more accessible ones. ============ Packet replication and elimination > > > > > > > > > relay > > > > > > > > > /------------+ R node E +------------\ > > / v + ^ \ > end R + v | ^ + E end system + v | ^ + system > \ v + ^ / > > \------------+ R relay E +-----------/ > > > > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > Figure 1 Packet replication and elimination does not react to and correct failures; it is entirely passive. Thus, intermittent failures, SB> I think it copes with intermittent failures OK. [Balázs Varga A] Yes, PRF and PEF can eliminate the effect of such failures. But text intends to say that it is passive. It is not reacting to such failures. No change in text. You say that PREF does not correct failures. I would contend that is exactly what it does. Sure it does not react but it does correct, and it does address intermittent failures. =========== transported between the peer end systems. Therefore, the following possible types / formats of a DetNet flow are distinguished in this document: o App-flow: native format of a DetNet flow. It does not contain any DetNet related attributes. o DetNet-t-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. Only requires the congestion / latency features provided by the Detnet transport layer. o DetNet-s-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. Only requires the replication/elimination feature ensured by the DetNet service layer. o DetNet-st-flow: specific format of a DetNet flow. It requires both DetNet service layer and DetNet transport layer functions during forwarding. SB> I find the relisting of these types confusing. Wheren't they defined SB> in the section above? [Balázs Varga A] This is inline with the previous section " Grouping of end systems ". Surely if we have defined them we never need to do anything but name them in later sections. Redefinition is never a good idea because it often leads to conflicting definitions. ============ [HSR-PRP] IEC, "High availability seamless redundancy (HSR) is a further development of the PRP approach, although HSR functions primarily as a protocol for creating media redundancy while PRP, as described in the previous section, creates network redundancy. PRP and HSR are both described in the IEC 62439 3 standard.", <http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/ artnum/046615!opendocument>. SB> Not available at the time of this review, but my recollection is SB> that this is not readily available without paying a large fee. If we decide that this is essential as a key reference, there needs to be some suitable text, as this will get raised a number of times between here an publication as first the directorates and then the ADs run into this. =========== [ISA95] ANSI/ISA, "Enterprise-Control System Integration Part 1: Models and Terminology", 2000, <https://www.isa.org/isa95/>. SB> Should that be 2000, or 2010. SB> Note that this seems to be a very expensive document to access. You did not comment on the correctness of the reference. Best Regards Stewart
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-architec… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Norman Finn
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] Extended WG Last Call: draft-ietf-de… Norman Finn
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Janos Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Janos Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Norman Finn
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Lou Berger
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Black, David
- Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-arch… Prof. Diego Dujovne
- [Detnet] draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-07 János Farkas
- Re: [Detnet] draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-07 János Farkas