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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

On 11/20/2018 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
>