Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-02

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ehsan,

Sorry about the delay.  I still see one problematic line in the new text:

    Then,
    the input flows are identified using the information in (Section 5.1
    of [RFC8939]).  Then they are aggregated into eight macro flows based
    on their traffic classes.

The term traffic classes still doesn't map well into RFC8939.  I think 
you mean

    Then they are aggregated into eight macro flows based
    on their service requirements.

It would be best to have this change made prior to submission for 
publication to the IESG. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Lou

On 5/10/2021 8:37 AM, Mohammadpour Ehsan wrote:

> Dear WG chairs,
>
> Since the comments have been addressed, I was wondering if we can 
> proceed to the publication request.
>
>
> Best,
> Ehsan
>
>
>
>> On 19 Apr 2021, at 03:50, Mohammadpour Ehsan 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear WG,
>>
>> A new version of Bounded Latency draft is uploaded 
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-05 
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-05>). 
>> This version addresses all the raised comments, including the latest 
>> ones by Lou and Toerless.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Ehsan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ehsan Mohammadpour
>> PhD Candidate at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)
>> EPFL EDIC PhD student representative
>> IC IINFCOM, LCA2, INF 011, Station 14, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
>> https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour 
>> <https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour>
>>
>>> On 9 Apr 2021, at 14:19, Lou Berger <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eshan,
>>>
>>>     Please let the WG know when you have addressed all previous 
>>> raised (and discussed items) and have uploaded the new version. This 
>>> will unblock the publication request.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>> On 4/7/2021 7:19 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>>>> Ehsan, *:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for Section 7 in the latest draft version. Helps a lot 
>>>> to get
>>>> the linkage between this doc and the DetNet architecure an QoS options.
>>>>
>>>> Alas, i do not see the concerns i raised with the authors about 
>>>> section 6.5 solved
>>>> that i send before IEF 110 in email. If you can't find that email, 
>>>> i can post it
>>>> again. Its solely about the fact that the document uses "IntServ" 
>>>> where it
>>>> should say (IntServ) "Guaranteed Service", because the second 
>>>> "IntServ" Service,
>>>> "Controlled Load" does not provide any determinisic latency 
>>>> guarantees (only GS does),
>>>> and therefore the unconstrained use of "IntServ" and not mentioning 
>>>> of "Guaranteed Services"
>>>> will be confusing to anyone who digs deeper into the IETF 
>>>> terminology (the refernce to rfc2212 is correct though).
>>>>
>>>> I think also tha he formulas in rfc2211 are more complex than what 
>>>> you write in 6.5,
>>>> i do like he simplification of 6.5, but it might be worth noting 
>>>> explicitly
>>>> hat those are implifications. specifically there are a bunch more 
>>>> parameters in
>>>> TSPEC/RSPEC than whats written in 6.5, and those parameters have 
>>>> impact on the
>>>> bounded latency in GS.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>     Toerless
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:56:01AM +0000, Mohammadpour Ehsan wrote:
>>>>> Hello Lou,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the comment, you???re right! I will use the following 
>>>>> sentence:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Then they are aggregated into eight macro flows based on their 
>>>>> DetNet flow aggregate."
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Ehsan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. The intention of "Then, the input flows are identified using 
>>>>> the information in (Section 5.1 of [RFC8939])???, was to say that 
>>>>> we use Section 5.1 of RFC8939 to identify the individual DetNet flows.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ehsan Mohammadpour
>>>>> PhD Candidate at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)
>>>>> IC IINFCOM, LCA2, INF 011, Station 14, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
>>>>> https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour<https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour?lang=en> 
>>>>> <https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour%3Chttps://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour?lang=en%3E>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Mar 2021, at 16:56, Lou Berger <[e-mail] 
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ehsan
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the update.  I did a quick skim and it looks much 
>>>>> improved.  I found one bit of new language confusing:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Section 6.4
>>>>>
>>>>>    In the considered queuing model, we considered the four traffic
>>>>>    classes (Definition 3.268 of [IEEE8021Q]): control-data traffic
>>>>>    (CDT), class A, class B, and best effort (BE) in decreasing 
>>>>> order of
>>>>>    priority.  Flows of classes A and B are together referred as AVB
>>>>>    flows.  This model is a subset of Time-Sensitive Networking as
>>>>>    described next.
>>>>>
>>>>>    ....
>>>>>
>>>>>    Then,
>>>>>    the input flows are identified using the information in 
>>>>> (Section 5.1
>>>>>    of [RFC8939]).  Then they are aggregated into eight macro flows 
>>>>> based
>>>>>    on their traffic classes.  We refer to each macro flow as a class.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in the first paragraph, you say "traffic classes" is defined by 
>>>>> 802.1Q.  in the second, you say "their traffic classes" is defined 
>>>>> based on [RFC8939].  I believe these are inconsistent definitions. 
>>>>>  I think you are trying to say that
>>>>>
>>>>>     Then they are aggregated into eight macro flows based on their 
>>>>> *DetNet flow aggregate.*
>>>>>
>>>>> This is assuming that the node isn't doing some sort of 
>>>>> independent mapping of micro-flows to macro-flows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if I'm missing something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/22/2021 11:33 AM, Mohammadpour Ehsan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear WG,
>>>>>
>>>>> We submitted a new version of the Bounded Latency draft that 
>>>>> addresses the comments received in the list 
>>>>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-04<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-03> 
>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-04<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-03>>); 
>>>>> it is now ready for submission to the IESG for publication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Lou for his comments. In the new version, we address the 
>>>>> comments as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Abstract
>>>>> I think the abstract should to be updated to match the current 
>>>>> content of the document. I suggest just copying the 4th and 5th 
>>>>> paragraphs from the Introduction section.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion. The new version is updated accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> - general comment: classes of (DetNet) Service
>>>>>
>>>>> The document states that it uses terminology from RFC8655, it also 
>>>>> uses the terms "Classes of DetNet Service", " DetNet Classes of 
>>>>> Service"  and other similar forms of these terms.  RFC8655 uses 
>>>>> this term in one place " Class-of-Service schemes (e.g., 
>>>>> DiffServ)" and also mentions "classes of DetNet flows"  in two 
>>>>> places.  The data plane documents [RFC8964] and [RFC8934] also 
>>>>> describe Class of Service in the context of DiffServ (and not DetNet).
>>>>>
>>>>> In reading the document it seems that it is not using CoS in the 
>>>>> typical way used in the IETF  or the other DetNet RFCs, and is 
>>>>> introducing a new definition for CoS.   II think having a document 
>>>>> specific definition of CoS probably isn't helpful. It would be 
>>>>> best to use existing DetNet terminology.  I suspect  "flow 
>>>>> aggregate" is the closest, but perhaps I'm missing something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your comment. In the new version, we used the term 
>>>>> ???aggregate??? instead of class in section 3.1 and classes of 
>>>>> DetNet flows. Section 6.4 uses the term ???traffic class??? as in 
>>>>> IEEE802.1Q.
>>>>>
>>>>> - alignment with the Data Plane RFCs
>>>>>
>>>>> The lists in section 3.1 and in section 6.4 are not well aligned 
>>>>> with the Data plane documents.  These sections should be aligned 
>>>>> with the provisioning of IP flows, as summarized in Section  6 of 
>>>>> RFC8939, and MPLS as summarized in Section 5 of RFC8964.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your comment. Section 3.1 is about flow admission 
>>>>> paradigm and not "flow creation???. The title is changed to 
>>>>> ???flow admission??? to avoid possible confusion. In fact, this 
>>>>> section is aligned with the DataPlane RFCs and in parallel with 
>>>>> provisioning of IP flows. We modified section 6.4 to follow the 
>>>>> Data plane documents.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - minor comment service vs frame preemption
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 3.1 uses the term "un-provisioning", I read the text as 
>>>>> meaning "service preemption".
>>>>>
>>>>> In the rest of the document preemption refers to "frame 
>>>>> preemption" and this should be clarified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion. In the new version, we use the term 
>>>>> ???service preemption??? and update the term ???preemption??? to 
>>>>> ???frame preemption???.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - id nits, please ensure the document passes idnits without 
>>>>> errors, see
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-02.txt 
>>>>> <https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-02.txt>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your comment about idnits. We added the missing 
>>>>> sections, i.e., ???security considerations??? and ???IANA 
>>>>> considerations??? to the draft. Also resolved other comments by 
>>>>> idnits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Ehsan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ehsan Mohammadpour
>>>>> PhD Candidate at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)
>>>>> EPFL EDIC PhD student representative
>>>>> IC IINFCOM, LCA2, INF 011, Station 14, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
>>>>> https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour<https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour?lang=en>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21 Feb 2021, at 23:15, Lou Berger 
>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The WG last call is complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please bring any resolutions to comments received to the list. 
>>>>> Once all comments are addressed please update the draft and let 
>>>>> the WG know that it is ready for submission to the IESG for 
>>>>> publications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/5/2021 8:30 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> This starts working group last call on 
>>>>> draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-02
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency/
>>>>>
>>>>> The working group last call ends on February 19th.
>>>>> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note, there was an IPR disclosure against this document
>>>>> submitted on January 14, 2021, see 
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4581/
>>>>> While this disclosure came very late in the document life cycle,
>>>>> it appears the filing was also relatively recent (2019-10-16) and
>>>>> after the pre adoption IP call:
>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/1mwYdadDzTLudcuH5T5O7R_KlDs
>>>>>
>>>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
>>>>> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
>>>>> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Lou (DetNet Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> detnet mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[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