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

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think "DetNet TE Sub-Layer" is good name, because one of the goals of DetNet is to provide bounded latency, to achieve that, dedicated resource (bandwidth, buffer) has to be reserved, explicit routing may be required, these are typical behaviors of Traffic Engineering. 

I used to think that "DetNet TE Tunnel Sub-Layer" is an appropriate name, given that DetNet likes an overlay model, especially for MPLS-based encapsulation. Where the Service Layer is over the "Transport Layer", it just likes the VPN model. And in the world of VPN, they are normally called Service Layer and Tunnel Layer.  If we only have MPLS-based encapsulation, I think "DetNet TE Tunnel Sub-layer" may be the perfect name. But as Andy pointed out, we have IP-based encapsulation that does not have the service layer, there is no such an overlay model.  Therefore, I think "DetNet TE Sub-Layer" is an appropriate name for both IP and MPLS-based encapsulations. 

Best regards,
Mach 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 6:34 AM
> To: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; Andrew G. Malis
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-detnet-
> [e-mail]; Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>; detnet
> WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Detnet] Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: Tsvart last
> call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
> 
> 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet