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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Focusing on the proposal:

> In order to have another alternative on the table I propose renaming
> "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
This is a bit of a new usage for 'Forwarding' but not totally -- 
thinking about FIBs.  My main reservation is that forwarding is usually 
considered separately from queuing, while this sub-layer embodies both.  
I do accept that TE usually considers both forwarding/steering and 
queuing, and that some assume that sophisticated queuing is required for 
TE -- which is actually service dependent.

Even with this caveat and my personal preference for the 'TE' option, I 
(as contributor) can live with "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer".

Lou

On 12/7/2018 10:45 AM, János Farkas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a similar concern with the change. It of course depends on the
> definition of Traffic Engineering, but the term "DetNet TE sub-layer"
> may imply to the reader that Traffic Engineering is a must even for
> DetNet transit nodes. As far as I recall, the intention is to make
> possible that DetNet transit nodes can be kept simple. Depending on the
> actual DetNet service provided, DetNet transit nodes can be actually simple.
>
> The idea behind the introduction of the two DetNet sub-layers was to
> make it easier to tackle the problem. The lower layer provides simpler
> packet forwarding related functions, the higher DetNet Service sub-layer
> provides more complex DetNet service related functions.
>
> In order to have another alternative on the table I propose renaming
> "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
>
> Best regards,
> Janos
>
>
> On 11/20/2018 10:10 PM, 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
>