Re: [Detnet] AD Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-07

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

[Adding authors list to ensure they are tacking...]

Authors,

please review and respond.

Thanks,

Lou

PS Roman, Thank you for the review!

On 10/27/2023 11:05 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I performed an AD review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-07 stepping in as the responsible AD to help load-balance the PubReq queue.  Thanks for the document.
>
> Begging your patience not being a RTG AD, I have difficulty understanding the basic encapsulation semantics being proposed.  I tried following the references, but wasn’t able to understand how to construct the basic encapsulation.  See below:
>
> ** Section 4.2.  Figure 3 is describing an encapsulation header built on fields and processes based on [RFC8964] and [RFC9025].  The UDP payload appears to be an S-Label + dCW + Detnet payload.  Section 4.2.1 of RFC8964 describes the d-CW format and semantics. Section 4.2.2 of RFC8964 has significant text describing S-Labels, but where is the very basic description: how many bits is it?  What are the semantics?
>
> ** Section 4.4.
> -- No objection to this text.  However, this behavior seems like an expansion of the PREOF scope I understand the document be.  Is there narrative text that can bridge how aggregation is a building block for replication, elimination and ordering?  I could perhaps speculate on replication and elimination. Less so on ordering.
>
> -- I’m missing a basic understanding of layering.  How do I know the header in UDP is “S-Label + dCW” vs. “A-Label + dCW + S-Label + dCW”?
>
> ** Section 5.
>     The minimum set of information for the configuration of the DetNet
>     service sub-layer is summarized as follows:
>
>     *  App-flow identification information.
>
> How do I specify that?
>
> ...
>     *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
>
> Does that mean to have PREOF “information” for configuration?  Does that mean choosing the algorithms?
>
> ** Section 6.
>     There are no new DetNet related security considerations introduced by
>     this solution.
>
> Please cite by reference which security considerations apply.
>
> ** Idnits reports:
>
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 427, but no explicit
>       reference was found in the text
>
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC8174' is defined on line 432, but no explicit
>       reference was found in the text
>
> Regards,
> Roman
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet