[Detnet] Re: a comment on draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf

[[e-mail]]

Hi Janos,

Agree with your observation for "tagged" that CQF uses ethernet VLAN tag.PCP mapping to specific IPV values for CQF flows.
I think that the encoding method of all EDP solutions can be commonly defined in a separate document, e.g., MPLS encoding commonly defined in draft-ietf-mpls-mna-detnet-00, IPv6 encoding defined in draft-eckert-6man-qos-exthdr-discuss, although both two documents need more detailed specificaitons. If this opinion is acceptable, the title of each EDP solution reflect its scheduling principle, rather than encoding method.
However, I also think this modificaiton and other possible actions may be done based on the adopted documents.

Regards,
PSF


Original


From: JanosFarkas <Janos.Farkas=[e-mail]>
To: DetNet WG <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2026年01月13日 17:37
Subject: [Detnet] Re: a comment on draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
 

Hi,
 
I wonder what is the preference of the group?
Are distinct names preferred?
 
Thanks and regards,
János
 
 


From: Janos Farkas 
 Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 11:53 PM
 To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
 Cc: DetNet WG <[e-mail]>
 Subject: a comment on draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf



 
Hi,
 
I have a comment on the title of the document, the name of the mechanism / draft: Tagged Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (TCQF)
 
The draft refers to Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (CQF) specified in Annex T of IEEE Std 802.1Q-2022. CQF described therein is based on VLAN-tagged frames. That is, the CQF of 802.1Q is tagged CQF.
 
Therefore, I’m afraid that the Tagged Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (TCQF) terminology applied in draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf is not distinctive enough.
 
If draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf gets adopted by the DetNet WG, then I’d suggest a distinct name and title for the WG document, e.g., Labelled Cyclic Queuing and Forwarding (LCQF) or some other one.
 
Regards,
János