Re: [Detnet] Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toreless,

On 11/20/2018 4:34 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> IMHO, "Traffic Engineering" will be worse than "Transport":

FWIW David Black - suggested that "Transport Network" as another 
alternative.

> - Makes more important people confused
>
>    IMHO, the mayor group of people (rightfully) confused by the term "Transport"
>    in the DetNet context are IETF apps and transport area people, and
>    quite frankly, thats not the primary reader constituency of DetNet
>    documents. Network operators / vendors / TSN members / TSN solutoin
>    devenlopers,


> aka: the primary reader consitutency for DetNet documents will
>    IMHO be less confused by "Transport" than by "Traffic Engineering".
>
> - Creates even more inconsistent confusion
>
>    IMHO, Differnt confused people will even more likely assume through
>    name recognition a lot more different functions into "Traffic
>    Engineering". (TE means RSVP-TE, oh no, TE means network planning,
>    TE can not mean QoS, TE is jut admission control, no TE needs to be
>    per-hop, yada yada yada).
>
> I am not arguing for keeping Transport, i am just more worried about
> "Traffic Engineering" than "Transport". I think a uniue new term without
> name recognition and resulting confusion would be best.
>
> Maybe form a new term from key words like the following, eg.:
>
>   DetNet Flow SubNetwork Encapsulation and Adaption Layer (DF-SEAL)
>
I personally think we have enough terms and should go with "DetNet TE 
Sub-Layer", "DetNet TE Network Sub-Layer", or  "DetNet Transport Network 
Sub-Layer"

Lou

> Cheers
>      Toerless
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 04:10:58PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>> On 11/20/2018 3:11 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>> This terminology is certainly appropriate for TEAS. For DetNet, this
>>> seems to make the assertion that the DetNet underlay is always
>>> traffic-engineered, even if IPv4 or IPv6 (which is certainly possible
>>> using TE extensions for the IGPs).
>> This is certainly a fair point and one that does lead me to have a slight
>> reservation about the change, that said, it seems the benefit out ways the
>> downsides.
>>
>>> As long as people are OK with this assertion, then I'm OK with it as
>>> well. That should be made clear in the architecture spec where the term
>>> "DetNet TE sub-layer" is introduced/defined.
>> agreed.
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:29 PM Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      I like it.
>>>      Ethan.
>>>
>>>      -----Original Message-----
>>>      From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>      Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:27 AM
>>>      To: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>      Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>      Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>      [e-mail]
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      Subject: RE: Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: [Detnet]
>>>      Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
>>>
>>>      I support this change;
>>>
>>>      Pascal
>>>
>>>      > -----Original Message-----
>>>      > From: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>      > Sent: mardi 20 novembre 2018 19:19
>>>      > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Scharf, Michael
>>>      > <[e-mail]
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>      > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>      [e-mail]
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      > Subject: Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: [Detnet]
>>>      Tsvart last
>>>      > call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
>>>      >
>>>      > ALL,
>>>      >
>>>      > There is a desire to replace the word "Transport" from the DetNet
>>>      > Transport sub-layer to avoid confusion with L$ Transport protocols.
>>>      >
>>>      > In the TEAS WG we had a similar discussion and we replaced
>>>      "Transport"
>>>      > with "Traffic Engineered (TE) ".
>>>      >
>>>      > While a bit more verbose, what do people think about this change?
>>>      >
>>>      > To be clear, the suggestion is:
>>>      >
>>>      > OLD
>>>      >
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>      >       |  DetNet Service sub-layer  | PW, UDP, GRE
>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>      >       | DetNet Transport sub-layer | IPv6, IPv4, MPLS TE LSPs,
>>>      MPLS SR
>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >
>>>      >                   Figure 4: DetNet adaptation to data plane
>>>      >
>>>      > NEW
>>>      >
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>      >       |  DetNet Service sub-layer  | PW, UDP, GRE
>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>      >       |      DetNet TE sub-layer   | IPv6, IPv4, MPLS TE LSPs,
>>>      MPLS SR
>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >                     .
>>>      >
>>>      >                   Figure 4: DetNet adaptation to data plane
>>>      >
>>>      > Lou
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>