Re: [Detnet] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-ip-06: (with COMMENT)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

Thanks for the comments.  It sounds like you are just 
echoing/reinforcing Alvaro's main points so would like to keep the 
conversation on that thread.  Is that okay?

Are there any other points you'd like to discuss?

thanks,

Lou

On 6/24/2020 7:30 PM, Warren Kumari via Datatracker wrote:
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-detnet-ip-06: No Objection
>
> 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-ip/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm balloting NoObj in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the
> sponsoring AD so have no problem." / "I have no cycles" sense. Due to other
> work, I was not able to review this document nearly as thoroughly as I would
> have liked, but I *do* support Alvaro's (and others) DISCUSS - there are many
> places where the document says that the network MUST do something, but without
> the something being particularly well defined;I'm sure that the authors /
> DetNet WG understand what these are, but it's not clear from the document
> itself -- I'm guessing that this is defined in other documents, but I wasn't
> able to easily find them.
>
> I was mystified by " For some of the protocols 5-tuples and 6-tuples cannot be
> used because the port information is not available (e.g., ICMP, IPSec ESP).
> Same can be valid for flow aggregates. " - is this that the 5/6 tuples cannot
> be used for flow aggregates? I went to try and find more info on flow
> aggregates, and looked in ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework (which, like many of
> the referenced draft-detnet- documents should be Normative references), but it
> didn't seem to have much detail (other than that "There are many techniques to
> achieve aggregation" -- where is how flow aggregation actually works
> documented? This document (S4.4) says that: flow aggregation "is an important
> technique for improving
>     scaling by reducing the state per hop", but without understanding how flows
>     are aggregated, and the state needed per flow, this is hard to evaluate. In
>     addition "In either case, the management or control function that provisions
>     the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate resources are allocated and
>     configured to provide combined service requirements of the individual
>     flows." -- if this "of the individual flows", or "of the aggregate flows"?
>     Presumably there will be a difference.
>
> I found Section "5.3.  DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures" to be very terse
> -- I was expecting to read this and understand what *exactly* the IP Traffic
> Treatment Procedures are - instead it seemed to feel more like "Implementations
> must make sure that they provide the service that has been configured". The
> section says: " Typical mechanisms used to provide different treatment to
> different flows includes the allocation of system resources (such as queues and
> buffers) and provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and
> policing). " -- but this all feels fairly circular - where is the treatment of
> traffic "when operating in an IP packet switched network." actually defined? If
> I'm building a router/switch/similar, and what to provide support for DetNet
> over IP, what *exactly* do I do with traffic once it has been identified? How
> do I queue it differently? What happens if I cannot meet the requirement? Where
> is this documented?
>
> Apologies for not being able to review this in the depth it deserves,
> W
>
>
>
>