IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 23 April 2018 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 6FE3212D775 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 XdXmKjJxPtIP for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (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 D0A20126CD6 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E43D4004F for <detnet@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:11:51 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id dqBn1x00v2SSUrH01qBq1V; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:11:51 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=G85sK5s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Kd1tUaAdevIA:10 a=49MmemBjQal3kv_a_N0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jPUP6rFPzHr32Q/6T1SSmmVGz29NIp24iJWgdzVJNlk=; b=WzhPM6aoSkq8TQ3DTY6y/y50Cb se9e5xFGwvKijqNvlXd+014FzFxM1iOTWSb/3aKolrEbRbC+NRkSLUeCPsecZbA0+TeSSBTCGMwKh OyVB4AHPN/SqFMYhQt0w/DELX;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:56590 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1fAcC3-002Wqq-P8; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:11:47 -0600
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>
Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
References: <DB4PR07MB065371BC2D2B6F348D24864AACB00@DB4PR07MB0653.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DB4PR07MB0653F67DB2ACBFF68F2B2BA9AC8A0@DB4PR07MB0653.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAA=duU3eErGPd6gAP9wd7b6vq+9VTCtnRXJPu_arh_-dg_P0FQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <0358461b-b79b-8e5e-f73d-b6325fe77a0a@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:11:46 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU3eErGPd6gAP9wd7b6vq+9VTCtnRXJPu_arh_-dg_P0FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1fAcC3-002Wqq-P8
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:56590
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 20
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/GewxXFW-rRdazAslz86HBZ60cxo>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Initial DP split documents available
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:11:53 -0000

Andy,

One comment below.

On 4/23/2018 9:36 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> 2. The text from draft-malis-detnet-ip-dp-00 has not yet been 
> incorporated into draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-00. This can happen in 
> the next revision.

This draft really is about carrying MPLS over an IP PSN and not native 
IP flows sourced from any IP node, including hosts, right? As such I 
think this falls in the category of an interworking function and we 
should decide if it belongs in (a) the MPLS solution doc and references 
the IP solution doc, (b) in the IP solution doc and references the MPLS 
solution doc or (c) in it's own document which references both solutions 
docs.  My inclination is either (a) as IP only devices won't care about 
MPLS,  or (c) as then we have an RFC that makes it clear that a 
conformant implementation supports the IWF.

What do you/others think?

Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email