Re: [Detnet] proposed revised Charter

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ethan,

Thanks for the feedback.  See in-line below.

On 3/6/2020 8:08 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote:
>
> Hi Lou and Janos,
>
> This looks good to me also, though I have a question about the phrase 
> “vertical requirements… this effort will detail the requirements for 
> deterministic networks in various industries that have previously not 
> been documented”.
>
For context, We tried to minimize changes to the current charter, i.e., 
change only what really needed to be changed/updated.

The related text in the original/current charter states:
     As needed, vertical requirements: This effort will detail the
     requirements for deterministic networks in various industries
     for example, professional audio, electrical utilities, building
     automation systems, wireless for industrial applications.

We left the first two lines alone, but replaced the second two with:
     that have previously not been documented or cannot be
     supported using defined DetNet solutions.

> The last time someone brought up a “new industry use case that had not 
> been documented for DetNet”, our response (perhaps just my personal 
> response, but I understood it to represented the WG) was that we 
> understand and expect there to be new use cases for DetNet as time 
> goes on, but that as long as they were satisfied by the existing 
> documented DetNet common properties (for example as outlined in the 
> Use Cases draft Common Themes section) it wasn’t particularly 
> necessary to document each new use case in a DetNet-authored RFC.
>
This was my read as well.
>
> So I can read the proposed text above in two ways, either “if you have 
> a new use case, it our charter to document it” or, alternatively, “if 
> a newly proposed use case implies addition of some new 
> property/requirement that DetNet has not already taken into account 
> and considered (e.g. as enumerated in the Use Case Common Themes), we 
> will address the missing property/requirement by either incorporating 
> it into DetNet, or by declaring that it is not supported by DetNet”.
>
I think this really comes down to if the word "or" in the lines should 
be an "and".

> So my point is, which of these interpretations is the authors’ intent 
> there?  And if it is the latter, do we feel that the existing text 
> makes this unambiguously clear? (Just because I read it in that 
> ambiguous way doesn’t mean others do).
>
While the ambiguity was not intentional, I now like the "or" as it 
explicitly allows the WG to document how future use cases can be 
supported using defined DetNet solutions.  This said, I personally don't 
object to changing it to an "and" if this is the WG's (or IESG's) 
preference.

Lou

> All in all, nice work.
>
> Ethan (as WG member)
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 6, 2020 8:15 AM
> *To:* Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* DetNet WG <[e-mail]>; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] proposed revised Charter
>
> Lou and Janos,
>
> It looks good to me, especially the sections regarding the controller 
> plane.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:29 AM Janos Farkas 
> <Janos.Farkas=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     WG,
>
>     As discussed at the last IETF, it is time for us to update our
>     charter. We have put together the following proposal:
>
>     The Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Working Group focuses on
>
>     deterministic data paths that operate over Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3
>
>     routed segments, where such paths can provide bounds on latency, loss,
>
>     and packet delay variation (jitter), and high reliability. The Working
>
>     Group addresses Layer 3 aspects in support of applications requiring
>
>     deterministic networking. The Working Group collaborates with the IEEE
>
>     802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group, which is responsible
>
>     for Layer 2 operations, to ensure an aligned architecture for both
>     Layer
>
>     2 and Layer 3. Example applications for deterministic networks include
>
>     professional and home audio/video, multimedia in transportation,
>     engine
>
>     control systems, and industrial automation, as well as other general
>
>     industrial and vehicular applications being considered by the IEEE
>     802.1
>
>     TSN Task Group.
>
>     The Working Group will initially focus on solutions for networks that
>
>     are under a single administrative control or within a closed group of
>
>     administrative control; these include not only campus-wide
>     networks but
>
>     also can include private WANs. The DetNet WG will not address
>     solutions
>
>     for large groups of domains such as the Internet.
>
>     The Working Group is responsible for the overall DetNet
>     architecture and
>
>     DetNet-specific specifications that encompasses the data plane, OAM
>
>     (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance), time synchronization,
>
>     management, control, and security aspects which are required to
>     enable a
>
>     multi-hop path, and forwarding along the path, with the deterministic
>
>     properties of controlled latency, low packet loss, low packet delay
>
>     variation, and high reliability. The work applies to point-to-point
>
>     (unicast) and point-to-multipoint (multicast) flows which can be
>
>     characterized in a manner that allows the network to 1) reserve the
>
>     appropriate resources for the flows in advance, and 2)
>     release/reuse the
>
>     resources when they are no longer required. The work covers the
>
>     characterization of flows, the encapsulation of frames, the required
>
>     forwarding behaviors, as well as the state that may need to be
>
>     established in intermediate nodes. Layer 3 data plane technologies
>     that
>
>     can be used include: IP and MPLS, and Layer 2 encapsulations that run
>
>     over IP and/or MPLS, such as pseudowires and GRE.
>
>     The Working Group will document which deployment environments and
>     types
>
>     of topologies are within (or outside) the scope of the DetNet
>
>     architecture. This work focuses on the data plane aspects and is
>
>     independent from any path setup protocol or mechanism. The working
>     group
>
>     will also document DetNet Controller Plane [1] approaches that reuse
>
>     existing IETF solutions, such as Path Computation Element (PCE), and
>
>     identify the appropriate Working Group for any extensions needed to
>
>     support DetNet. Documents produced by the Working Group will be
>
>     compatible with the work done in IEEE802.1 TSN and other IETF Working
>
>     Groups. The Working Group's scope explicitly excludes modifications of
>
>     transport protocols, OAM, Layer 3 forwarding, encapsulations, and
>
>     control plane protocols, but it may define requirements for such
>
>     modifications and identify the appropriate Working Group for any
>     needed
>
>     modifications.
>
>     DetNet is chartered to work in the following areas:
>
>     Overall architecture: This work encompasses the data plane, OAM, time
>
>     synchronization, management, control, and security aspects.
>
>     Data plane: This work will document how to use IP and/or MPLS to
>     support
>
>     a data plane method of flow identification and packet forwarding over
>
>     Layer 3. Other IETF defined data plane technologies may also be used.
>
>     Controller Plane: This work will document how to use IETF control
>     plane
>
>     solutions to support DetNet. This work includes identification of any
>
>     gaps in existing solutions and identifying the appropriate Working
>     Group
>
>     for any needed extensions..
>
>     Data flow information model: This work will identify the information
>
>     needed for flow establishment and control and be used by reservation
>
>     protocols and YANG data models. The work will be independent from the
>
>     protocol(s) used to control the flows (e.g. YANG+NETCONF/RESTCONF,
>     PCEP
>
>     or GMPLS).
>
>     YANG models: This work will document device and link capabilities
>
>     (feature support) and resources (e.g. buffers, bandwidth) for use in
>
>     device configuration and status reporting. Such information may
>     also be
>
>     used when advertising the deterministic network elements to a control
>
>     plane. Control plane related information will be independent from the
>
>     protocol(s) which may be used to advertise this information (e.g.
>     IS-IS
>
>     or GMPLS extensions). Any new YANG models will be coordinated with the
>
>     Working Groups that define any base models that are to be augmented.
>
>     As needed, vertical requirements: This effort will detail the
>
>     requirements for deterministic networks in various industries that
>     have
>
>     previously not been documented or cannot be supported using defined
>
>     DetNet solutions.
>
>     To investigate whether existing data plane encryption mechanisms
>     can be
>
>     applied, possibly opportunistically, to improve security and privacy.
>
>     The Working Group coordinates with other relevant IETF Working Groups,
>
>     including CCAMP, PCE, PALS, TEAS, OSPF, IS-IS, TSVWG, RAW, and
>
>     6TisSCH. As the work progresses, requirements may be provided to the
>
>     responsible Working Group, e.g. PCE, TEAS, and CCAMP, with DetNet
>     acting
>
>     as a focal point to maintain the consistency of the overall
>     architecture
>
>     and related solutions. The WG will liaise with appropriate groups in
>
>     IEEE and other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs).
>
>     [1] The DetNet Controller Plane is defined in RFC 8655 as "the
>
>     aggregation of the Control and Management Planes"
>
>     The difference compared to the current charter is available at:
>
>     https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/detnet-recharter
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__etherpad.ietf.org-3A9009_p_detnet-2Drecharter&d=DwMFaQ&c=lI8Zb6TzM3d1tX4iEu7bpg&r=ZcHC6wX_gDwPDcfMaFNZiQ&m=bXn6vVroSgf2XRzk9bbkPawRx-z8QWyiPikWlcNw03o&s=abcfl7uanOC0v5Tl0RbYDVW0Bcxiqon9CNlwHMfy_LQ&e=>
>
>
>     Our plan is to submit revised charter to the IESG after IETF 107.
>     Given the number of remote participants, we are happy to have the
>     discussion fully on the list.
>
>     Please submit your comments on the list.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Lou and Janos
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     detnet mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_detnet&d=DwMFaQ&c=lI8Zb6TzM3d1tX4iEu7bpg&r=ZcHC6wX_gDwPDcfMaFNZiQ&m=bXn6vVroSgf2XRzk9bbkPawRx-z8QWyiPikWlcNw03o&s=FVUOpSHy-OwCaMUnZzTxacV7Zyc8eL4gBqbSrrTchxo&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet