Re: [Detnet] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 11 December 2020 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
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 C55143A0FC9; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:14:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 gKg4KboXfLDd; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D255A3A0FC7; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id n4so11037419iow.12; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:14:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CA9u11fY/AA+fl3CE4gtuP6lqaFw37aeOyQiMPczdvs=; b=crwufaeE31MSsvPW5Iue0s2S2wu0DfztNAnDdxKZjVpvgju6buFDHpaTzHIaKf9KJe EoqeeP2A7aG/iZV2ByaYLRi73FifdkCJ/m1WTxD8EKlUQ2pXGSrBEsfOps5fXB6jspZU Ubc+TAnRwYJfOKHIKda16QosaWFMzmlh58Wy4w7x8leJObCM81A8OSFxOqDC5p29oUsm iTkC5QRMtk4l5dmLA0nvu2V5Z64vS2NlWrKanvvp0b2mkzaOyVtrMbLgVHseqRgyp4n7 SNdx22pP2pG9xHKfKUZ7UDDaCjRvSHV+LN5UB2+lTH4Fa9kdZB0GPbC6Ld3bDh7JqbDU avoA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CA9u11fY/AA+fl3CE4gtuP6lqaFw37aeOyQiMPczdvs=; b=rwplKRGpY8CAxvAiBbgQAGHb601QmEgui+qTizDuBQE7ZbqzYbFj7FOBy2Qirn8V6J lrBSOO5SwHkn21kcPKuzZT7OuRwEsCV5T7Eb3FeG0dq66onY1hu4w6kk79887o3o/RS6 ZTbuLMx0XGzy6fvcvxA4A6CbVxq7kbJxLOtWfDfRv1zyO+kAN3e6guAIV6ugvCFWCFM1 Dgl9dGHuzij9JdpRTj1/6pEjDDz4v/m6Odf80S/thtaDaKr6ECV4CJCANNjx67rxXw9L p+jJFDl9lxRDbtWvL5fkNI39JTtRznYYknn+Cv3zUNi0btxQUDwdmAvCNbO8HULCJHYX kTiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Mw8oh2Ubi2IG6W5bN0dmwX1BuFJi1ME3m6UuecUaa2fPKx1fg 71DYYwDt6h6xQEAtsmHf36Hu2ziz0uziuRoUf9K8OE3hJ5k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyX/dL61IVsJlrhAPawKaROIiB4uGDuYCKK8Bx2/ozMbimY3lk+SaUASqk5vnHfcwCbQkUzc2lg2YF5ta52Bho=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:a88a:: with SMTP id l10mr18197982jam.95.1607724857827; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:14:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160746135090.29424.17222836939100269941@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM0PR0702MB36032F38D33D9C3DF7CB17A9ACCA0@AM0PR0702MB3603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0702MB36032F38D33D9C3DF7CB17A9ACCA0@AM0PR0702MB3603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:14:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxR+=VUr2Xd+wHV+YAN8+ejLOetBSUkvNNf3KWDfvNC6Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "detnet-chairs@ietf.org" <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c28f305b6379d6a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/LTqIjXsxDiQevlX-uBv6t7Z6YGI>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:14:27 -0000

These changes are great, thanks. I will remove the DISCUSS in draft-13.

Non-blocking, but I might say “YANG data model” instead of “data model”,
just to make the distinction less obscure. And possibly an informative
reference to the yang draft.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:36 AM Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Many thanks for the review and the good comments.
> Proposals for resolving them are below marked <BV>.
>
> Please let me know if You are happy with them.
>
> Thanks
> Bala'zs
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:03 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model@ietf.org;
> detnet-chairs@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>;
> lberger@labn.net
> Subject: Martin Duke's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-12: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Secs 5.9.6 defines Maximum Reordering Tolerance with an example: "The
> difference of sequence number values in
>    consecutive packets at the Egress cannot be bigger than
>    "MaxMisordering + 1"."
>
> While this definition is actionable, it interacts uncomfortably with
> Maximum Consecutive Loss. If MCL < MRT, there are cases where it will
> violate MRT but not MCL, which would subvert the usually understood meaning
> of reordering.
>
> Moreover, if MaxMisordering is 3, the sequence 6, 4, 0 would not trigger
> this definition even though there is very significant reordering here.
>
> A better example would be "When a packet arrives at the egress after a
> packet with a higher sequence number, the difference between the sequence
> number values cannot be bigger than
>    "MaxMisordering + 1"."
>
> <BV> Thanks, fully valid comment. I like your proposal to resolve the
> issue for
> the example, so intend to change accordingly.
> OLD TEXT
>    The maximum allowed misordering can be measured for example based on
>    sequence number.  The difference of sequence number values in
>    consecutive packets at the Egress cannot be bigger than
>    "MaxMisordering + 1".
> NEW TEXT
>    The maximum allowed misordering can be measured for example based
>    on sequence numbers. When a packet arrives at the egress after a
>    packet with a higher sequence number, the difference between the
>    sequence number values cannot be bigger than
>    "MaxMisordering + 1".
> END
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sec 1. s/rational/rationale
>
> <BV> OK.
>
>
> Sec 1.2 and 1.3. What is the difference between the "flow information
> model"
> that is stated goal and the "flow data model" that is a stated non-goal?
>
> <BV> Data model refers to YANG and we have a dedicated draft for YANG.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-yang/
>
>
> Sec 5.5 Octets/second seems like a very odd unit for Max/Min Payload size.
> This should either be Octets, or the metric should be renamed Max/Min
> Payload Rate, or something to that effect.
>
> <BV> Upps. That is an error.
> OLD TEXT
>    PayloadSizes are specified in octets per second.
> NEW TEXT
>   PayloadSizes are specified in octets.
> END
>
>
> Sec 5.5. the section says a lot about violations of the minimum, but not
> the maximum. This approach seems inconsistent.
> <BV> Right. Sending more traffic than maximum results in possible drop
> and/or
> not fulfilling the service requirements of the flow. Some new text to be
> added
> before the second paragraph after the attribute list.
> OLD TEXT
>    N/A.
> NEW TEXT
>   Flows exceeding the traffic specification (i.e., having more traffic
> than
>   defined by the maximum attributes) may receive a different network
>   behavior than the DetNet network has been engineered for. Excess
>   traffic due to malicious or malfunctioning devices can be prevented
>   or mitigated (e.g., through the use of existing mechanisms such as
>   policing and shaping).
> END
>
>