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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

On 11/21/2018 11:56 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks, Lou, inline
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 05:34:09PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> 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"
> AFAIK, TE classically does include protection, such as in RSVP-TE. Yet
> in DetNet, protection is specifically part of the service sub-layer,
> and arguably you probably won't want to reuse pre-existing protection
> mechanism of the transport/TE sub-layer without a lot of further design
> considerations if you're using the DetNet Service sub-layer
> protection, so that TE/transport sub-layer is not really doing full TE.

If a TE/Transport Network sub-layer includes sufficient protection 
mechanisms, I'm not sure why we would not make use of it.  This is 
exactly what is planned for IP over) TSN for example. Now you can 
certainly argue that TSN is below the DetNet TE layer, but I think the 
point still holds.

BTW I think DetNet's service/TE split is very similar to what we have in 
RFC5921, but in a less MPLS-centric form.

Lou

>
> Toerless
>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>