Re: [Detnet] DetNet working meetings on scaling/queueing

[Yizhou Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

There is one more draft draft-yizhou-detnet-ipv6-options-for-cqf-variant-01 related to scheduling. Would you please add to the list?

I would like to  give a more detailed presentation if the time permits in one of the open working meetings.

Thanks,
Yizhou


From: detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 5:13 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Black, David <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Detnet] DetNet working meetings on scaling/queueing

With the first of these working meetings coming up next week (Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning depending on time zone - WebEx info here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/5Ckc25NPr3C-wsQ9Zv4RzsADM1I/), I thought I'd try to describe some expectations (and non-expectations).

These open working meetings will be less structured than DetNet meetings during IETF week or the interim meeting (no fixed time slots, discussion will not be entirely organized/oriented around slide decks).  The initial open working meeting focus will be queuing and packet scheduling within individual DetNet nodes, where we're aware of the following four drafts that propose node queuing or scheduling mechanisms:

draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf-02 Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane - Tagged Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (TCQF)

draft-joung-detnet-asynch-detnet-framework-02 Asynchronous Deterministic Networking Framework for Large-Scale Networks

draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding-05 Deadline Based Deterministic Forwarding

draft-peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism-01 Generic Packet Timeslot Scheduling Mechanism

If any drafts are missing from the above list (or any of the above drafts should be removed), please send a note to the list or directly to me with the WG chairs ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) cc:'d.

The open working meetings will initially address three items:


  1.  Refining requirements: The scaling requirements draft (Requirements for Scaling Deterministic Networks) ought to be stable enough by the end of April that work invested in determining whether and to what extent the proposed mechanisms do/don't meet its requirements will not be wasted.



  1.  Longer presentations of the proposed mechanisms.  Each open working meeting ought to be able to accommodate one or two 40-45 minute slots for longer, more detailed presentations than have been possible during the limited time available in WG meetings - that would be 30-35 minutes of presentation, 10-15 minutes of questions.  With apologies for the short notice, authors of proposals who would like to do this at next week's meeting should please contact me and cc: the WG chairs.


  1.  Evaluation criteria.  It seems clear to me that we will need to look at evaluation criteria beyond the requirements draft - a process discussion of how to go about this in a reasonable and fair fashion seems appropriate (e.g., much as the effort that has gone into draft-eckert-detnet-criteria-assessment is worthy, the author has been open and honest about being a proponent of one of the solutions - I don't like the optics of the group for one of the proposal drafts being in charge of writing the evaluation criteria for all of the proposals).

Please keep in mind that these open working meetings cannot make decisions for the WG - any suggestions/recommendations that emerge will have to be taken to this mailing list for further discussion.

Comments, questions and alternate suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, --David

David L. Black, Sr. Distinguished Engineer, Technology & Standards
Infrastructure Solutions Group, Dell Technologies
mobile [phone] [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>