Re: [Detnet] data plane framework editorial pass

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Ethan,

That's certainly the intention of the design team, to publish the framework
first. That should make publication of the subsequent drafts easier, since
any terminology or other issues in the framework that make come up during
last call can then be reflected in the other drafts before they also go
through the process.

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:17 PM Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Interesting, thanks Andy. So I note that the strategy with this framework
> draft is to list the other data plane drafts under Informative – I gather
> that is so that we don’t have to publish them all at once, even though in
> some line of reasoning they are rather closely tied to each other.
>
>
>
> I just want to validate that the WG has thought through the sequence and
> relation (in the sense of referencing) of the data plane drafts, and that
> the format of their referencing of each other is good to go.
>
>
>
> Correct?
>
> Ethan (as data plane framework doc shepherd).
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2019 11:32 AM
> *To:* Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] data plane framework editorial pass
>
>
>
> Ethan,
>
>
>
> See
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_about_groups_iesg_statements_normative-2Dinformative-2Dreferences_&d=DwMFaQ&c=lI8Zb6TzM3d1tX4iEu7bpg&r=ZcHC6wX_gDwPDcfMaFNZiQ&m=LoWr5FLLdxJ9F8PZ-w96sSItGvuPA1_FxlNEEaxkQRo&s=-aH2JFhFFXLykGa5qW-xfEV0mob9ZxAwa0B1hZD-K3o&e=>
> for more information.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Ethan,
>
>
>
> Informative RFCs can have normative references. The rule is that if you
> need the reference to implement or understand the RFC, then it's a
> normative reference. If the reference just adds additional background
> information, then it's informative.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:52 PM Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Balazs,
>
> Thanks for your responses. Given that this draft is Informational, should
> references classified as Normative be moved to the Informative References
> section, and the Normative References section removed?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ethan.
>
>
>
> *From:* Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 3, 2019 6:59 AM
> *To:* Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: data plane framework editorial pass
>
>
>
> Hi Ethan,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your detailed review and great suggestions. I have
> accepted most of them “as is”. See reactions inline.
>
> I will update the draft on Github and create a pull request during the
> next week to make changes visible.
>
> https://github.com/detnet-wg/data-plane-drafts
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_detnet-2Dwg_data-2Dplane-2Ddrafts&d=DwMFAw&c=lI8Zb6TzM3d1tX4iEu7bpg&r=ZcHC6wX_gDwPDcfMaFNZiQ&m=ooBa0YGoSfUxbAgLXk8YD9UZkK4Qeri0-G20uc_zLtc&s=Kjy_R6-zJrZe5ijdAhLrXpYSQB4T341hC7-WUGwVStk&e=>
>
>
>
> Any further comments from the group is highly welcome.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Bala’zs
>
>
>
> *From:* detnet <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Grossman, Ethan A.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 1, 2019 4:38 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Detnet] data plane framework editorial pass
>
>
>
> Hi All, (particularly Balazs as editor of the draft),
>
> I hate to be the guy who waits until WG LC to actually read the draft
> carefully and then comes with a bunch of comments, but here I am; hopefully
> I will get into gear sooner with the other data plane drafts, but as
> document shepherd I have to read carefully, and I figured as long as I was
> noticing things I would write them down.
>
> So as a result there are many comments below; thankfully they are mostly
> grammatical, the sort that the IETF Editorial will surely make if we don’t
> correct them, so I figure we should bite the bullet and do them now rather
> than later. There are even a few actual “what does this mean” type of
> questions. But on the whole the draft is in quite good shape and I plan to
> start my “shepherd writeup” soon, given that I have gone over the draft
> carefully now.
>
> The form I am using for my comments is like this:
>
> Issue type (e.g. wording, grammar, abbreviation, etc):
>
> “text in question”
>
> è “Ethan’s suggestion on how to fix it:”
>
> I hope this is helpful. If it isn’t, just let me know and for the
> remaining drafts I’ll be less picky (or whatever your suggestion to me is).
> And of course I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick on some of the
> items, so please feel free to push back if I got the meaning wrong.
>
> Ethan (as data plane framework draft document shepherd).
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Wording:
>
> “Abstract
>
> This document provides an overall framework for the Deterministic
> Networking data plane.  It covers concepts and considerations that are
> generally common to any Deterministic Networking data plane specification.”
>
>    - Say DetNet instead of the more generic Deterministic Networking
>    since it is specific to our architecture, not to all of deterministic
>    networking in the world.
>
> *>Balazs> OK.*
>
> Wording:
>
> “1.  Introduction
>
>    Deterministic Networking (DetNet)”
>
>    - Similarly, say “DetNet (Deterministic Networking)” .
>
> *>Balazs> OK.*
>
> Wording:
>
> “The forwarding sub-layer is used to provide congestion protection (low
> loss, assured latency, and limited out-of-order delivery) and leverages
> Traffic Engineering mechanisms.”
>
>    - Improve clarity:
>
> The forwarding sub-layer leverages Traffic Engineering mechanisms to
> provide congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited
> out-of-order delivery).
>
> *>Balazs> OK in principle. Slightly modified your proposal to catch better
> the sense “… leverages Traffic Engineering mechanisms and provides …”*
>
> Grammar:
>
> “service sub-layer”
>
>    - Service is a proper name, s/b capitalized.
>
> *>Balazs> Hmmm. In architecture draft we have used “service sub-layer” and
> “forwarding sub-layer”. I would keep it.*
>
> Wording:
>
> “It also describes the forwarding sub-layer that is used to   eliminate
> (or reduce) contention loss and provide bounded latency for   DetNet flows.”
>
>    - Redundant with above paragraph. s/b just “…the Forwarding
>    sub-layer”. “assured latency” vs “bounded latency”...
>
> *>Balazs> OK. I will collapse the two sentences.*
>
> Meaning:
>
> “ Different traffic types, or application flows, can be mapped on top   of
> DetNet.”
>
>    - Are these two separate things? I gather they are? Maybe “Different
>    traffic types and application flows can be mapped on top  of DetNet”. Below
>    it then says
>
> “3.  DetNet Data Plane Overview
>
>    This document describes how application flows, or app-flows, are
> carried over DetNet networks.”
>
> This sounds like they are synonyms? But an App Flow is not differentiated
> by “traffic type” – we differentiate based on individual flow. So I think
> we should remove “traffic types” above.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. Traffic types intended to refer to the encapsulation of the
> App-flow (e.g., Ethernet or IP). I will fix this.*
>
> Wording:
>
>  “functions  related to the control plane”
>
>    - Are we standardizing on controller plane vs control plane, or are
>    these different grammatical roles?
>
> *>Balazs> OK. I think it would be better simple to refer to the OAM
> drafts.*
>
> Wording:
>
> “The forwarding sub-layer provides the quality underpin needed by the
> DetNet flow...”
>
>    - Is underpin a real word? Sounds like we mean QoS?
>
> *>Balazs> OK. I will change to “… the QoS related functions needed …”*
>
> Abbreviation:
>
> “An example of   this is Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering
> (PREOF)    functions see Section 4.3.”
>
>    - Not first use of PREOF, should not spell out here.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “The method of instantiating each of the layers is specific to the
> particular DetNet data plane method.  There may be more than one   approach
> that is applicable to a given bearer network type.”
>
>    - I would combine these into a single sentence with comma, as: “The
>    method of instantiating each of the layers is specific to the particular
>    DetNet data plane method, and more than one approach may be applicable to a
>    given bearer network type”.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Wording:
>
> “3.1.  Data Plane Characteristics
>
>    There are two major characteristics to the data plane:
>
>    1.  Data plane technology: *The DetNet data plane is provided by the
> DetNet service and forwarding sub layers*.”
>
> à Please don’t tell me this again. Eliminate this sentence.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. :--)))*
>
> Wording:
>
> “Namely”
>
>    - Remove this word, already said “specifically” which is better
>    anyway.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Abbreviations:
>
> “S-label and d-CW”
>
>    - Need to add these to Abbrev section.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Structure:
>
> “There are two major characteristics to the data plane:
>
>    1. Data plane technology:”
>
>
>
>    - I would say these should not be a 2-item numbered list, they should
>    be a topic sentence listing both, followed by subsections, as is done for
>    Encapsulation but not for Technology. Also one says Data Plane Technology,
>    the other just Encapsulation – should be consistent – So we could have:
>
> 3.1.  Data Plane Characteristics
>
> There are two major characteristics to the data plane: the technology and
> the encapsulation, as discussed below.
>
> 3.1.1 Technology
>
> …
>
> 3.1.2 Encapsulation
>
> …
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “The encapsulation of the DetNet flows allows them to be sent over a
> data plane technology other than their native type.  Encapsulation is
> essential if, for example, it is required to send Ethernet TSN stream    as
> a DetNet Application over a data plane such as MPLS.”
>
>    - Consolidate: “The encapsulation of a DetNet flow allows it to be
>    sent over a   data plane technology other than its native type. For
>    example, an Ethernet TSN app flow can be sent as a DetNet app flow over
>    MPLS...”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “meta-data”
>
>    - s/b metadata – not a hyphenated word.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Clarity:
>
> “The DetNet data plane can provide or carry meta-data:
>
>    1.  Flow-ID
>
>    2.  Sequence Number
>
> … Both of these metadata are required …”
>
>    - I initially read this as “they are both required” but then it turns
>    out they are not. Rephrase:
>
> “The DetNet data plane supports a Flow-ID (for identification of the flow
> or aggregate flow) and/or a Sequence Number (for PREOF) for each DetNet
> flow. The DetNet Service sub-layer requires both; the DetNet forwarding
> sub-layer requires only Flow-ID. Metadata can also be used for OAM
> indications and instrumentation of DetNet data plane operation.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “it is anticipated that more than one encapsulation   may be deployed for
> example GRE”
>
>    - Need comma after “deployed,”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Wording:
>
> “[RFC7657] also provides useful background on the delivery differentiated
> services (DiffServ)”
>
>    - I don’t think “the delivery” belongs there? Delete? (”…useful
>    background on Differentiated Services (Diffserv)…” (following RFC7657
>    format).
>
> *>Balazs> OK. I will rephrase. Reference to rfc7657 is important here, so
> I will keep it.*
>
> Word meaning:
>
> “It is possible to include such information in a native IP   packet
> explicitly, or implicitly.”
>
>    - I understand “explicitly” to mean there is additional metadata, vs
>    “implicitly” to mean that it is inferred from the existing fields e.g.
>    6-tuple. However above, it says “Some MPLS examples of implicit metadata
>    include the sequence number    for use by the PREOF function” – to me that
>    sounds odd. Can we please reconcile use of the words “explicit” vs
>    “implicit” and/or explain the meaning of each. We also have
>    explicit/implicit *paths* (for which I don’t see a clear definition
>    from a simple google search):
>
> “MPLS provides the ability to forward traffic over implicit and   explicit
> paths to the point in the network where the next DetNet   service sub-layer
> action needs to take place.”
>
> “Reservation and Allocation of resources:” (and similar lines below)
>
>    - Perhaps these paragraphs should be 3rd level headers, as opposed to
>    one-sentence paragraphs with “:” at the end. This would also cause them to
>    be included in the table of contents. Perhaps having a bullet list at the
>    top would be useful? Then one could move to here the statement from below:
>    “Several of these capabilities are expanded upon in more detail in sections
>    below.”
>
> *>Balazs> Hmmm. I will reconsider these sentences. *
>
> Clarity:
>
> “This can eliminate packet contention and loss”
>
>    - I would explicitly say “This can eliminate packet contention and
>    packet loss”.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “This also can reduce jitter for the DetNet traffic”
>
>    - Eliminate superfluous “the”: “This also can reduce jitter for DetNet
>    traffic”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Clarity:
>
> “DetNet flows are assumed to behave with respect to the reserved traffic
> profile.  If other traffic shares the link resources, the use of (queuing,
> policing, shaping) policies can be used to ensure that the allocation of
> resources reserved for DetNet is met.   Queuing and shaping of DetNet
> traffic could be required to ensure that DetNet traffic does not exceed its
> reserved profile but this would impact the DetNet service characteristics.”
>
>    - I think this could be made clearer. Maybe:
>
> “DetNet flows are assumed to behave with respect to the reserved traffic
> profile.  If other traffic shares the link resources, the use of policies
> (such as queuing, policing, shaping) can be applied to the “other” traffic
> to ensure that the allocation of resources reserved for DetNet is not
> compromised.  Queuing and shaping of DetNet traffic to ensure that it does
> not exceed its reserved profile (for example by dropping packets) may be
> necessary to prevent fault conditions, but should not be used under normal
> conditions as this could compromise the DetNet QoS.”
>
> *>Balazs> Hmmm. Agree some rewording is needed here. We intend to say here
> two things: (1) resources allocated to a DetNet flow must be protected from
> other traffic. (2) misbehaving DetNet flows must be detected and it have to
> be ensured that there do not compromise DetNet QoS. I will reformulate.*
>
> “Network coding”
>
>    - Proper name, Network Coding, s/b capitalized.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> “packet by packet”
>
>    - s/b hyphenated “packet-by-packet”.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “Since Detnet leverages many different forwarding sub-layers, those
> technologies also support a number of tools to troubleshoot connectivity
> for example, to support identification of misbehaving  flows.”
>
>    - Try:
>
>  “Detnet leverages many different forwarding sub-layers, each of which
> supports various tools to troubleshoot connectivity, for example
> identification of misbehaving flows.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “At the service layer again there are existing mechanisms to troubleshoot
> or monitor flows.  Many of these mechanisms exist for IP and MPLS
> networks.  A client of a DetNet service can introduce any monitoring
> applications which can detect and monitor delay and loss.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “The DetNet Service layer can leverage existing mechanisms to troubleshoot
> or monitor flows, such as those in use by IP and MPLS networks.  At the
> Application layer a client of a DetNet service can use existing techniques
> to detect and monitor delay and loss.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “Recognize flow(s) for analytics:”
>
>    - Try
>
> “Flow recognition for analytics:
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “To a large degree this follows the logic in the previous section.
> Analytics can be inherited from the two sub-layers.  At the DetNet service
> edge packet and bit counters e.g. sent, received, dropped, and out of
> sequence are maintained.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “Network analytics can be inherited from the technologies of the Service
> and Forwarding sub-layers.  At the DetNet service edge, packet and bit
> counters (e.g. sent, received, dropped, and out-of-sequence) can be
> maintained.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “Correlate events with flows:”
>
>       The provider of a DetNet service may allow other capabilities to
> monitor flows such as more detail loss statistics and time stamping of
> events.  The details of these capabilities are currently out of scope for
> this document.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “Correlation of events with flows:”
>
>       The provider of a DetNet service may provide other capabilities to
> monitor flows, such as more detailed loss statistics and time stamping of
> events.  The details of these capabilities are currently out of scope for
> this document.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> 3.6.1
>
> Grammar:
>
> “in the case of network congestion or some failures.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “in the case of network congestion or equipment failure.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK in principle. Failures can be both equipment failure or
> network link failure, so I will change to ““in the case of network
> congestion or network failure.””*
>
> Abbreviation error:
>
> “combinations of PRF, PRE, and POF.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “combinations of PRF, PEF, and POF.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> ‘“This example also illustrates 1:1 protection scheme meaning there is
> traffic and path for each segment of the end to end path.”
>
>    - I do not understand what this means; “there is traffic and path”?
>
> *>Balazs> OK. “… meaning there is traffic over each segment …”*
>
> Grammar: (Ring Service Protection is a proper name, capitalized, “rings”
> is not).
>
> ‘“Many of the same concepts apply however Rings”
>
>    - “Many of the same concepts apply, however rings”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “The DetNet data plane also allows for the aggregation of DetNet flows, to
> improved scaling by reducing the state per hop...”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “The DetNet data plane also allows for the aggregation of DetNet flows,
> which can improve scalability by reducing the per-hop state.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “If bandwidth reservations are used, the sum of the reservations should be
> the sum of all the individual reservations, in other words, the
> reservations should not create an over subscription of bandwidth
> reservation. If maximum delay bounds are used the system should ensure that
> the aggregate does not exceed the delay bounds of the individual flows.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “If bandwidth reservations are used, the sum of the reservations should be
> the sum of all the individual reservations; in other words, the
> reservations should not add up to an over-subscription of bandwidth
> reservation. If maximum delay bounds are used, the system should ensure
> that the aggregate does not exceed the delay bounds of the individual
> flows.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “Encapsulation can either be in the same service type or in a different
> service type see Figure 3 for example.  When an encapsulation is used the
> choice of reserving a maximum resource level and then tracking the services
> in the aggregated service or adjusting the aggregated resources as the
> services are added is implementation and technology specific.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “Encapsulation can either be in the same service type or in a different
> service type (see Figure 3, for example).  When an encapsulation is used,
> the choice of reserving a maximum resource level and then tracking the
> services in the aggregated service, versus adjusting the aggregated
> resources as the services are added, is implementation- and
> technology-specific.”
>
> In the following, I don’t know what “conditions where general requirements
> are not satisfied” means, please clarify:
>
> “DetNet flows at edges must be able to handle rejection to an aggregation
> group due to lack of resources as well as conditions where general
> requirements are not satisfied.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. I think here we need some reconstruction of the text.*
>
> Grammar:
>
> “For the data plane flows may be aggregated for treatment based on shared
> characteristics such as 6-tuple.”
>
>    - Need comma after “For the data plane,”.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. I think here we need some reconstruction of the text.*
>
> Grammar:
>
> “MPLS aggregation similarly has data plane and controller plane aspects.
> In the case of MPLS flows are often tunneled in a forwarding sub-layer and
> reservation is associated with that MPLS tunnel.”
>
>    - Try (I am not certain this is the correct meaning?):
>
> “MPLS aggregation also has data plane and controller plane aspects.  MPLS
> flows are often tunneled in a forwarding sub-layer, under the reservation
> associated with that MPLS tunnel.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “3.6.3.  End-System Specific Considerations”
>
>    - Hyphenate “End-System-Specific”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Abbreviation: “DN” for DetNet as in “which are not provided by DN
> functions”.
>
>    - “DN” is not defined as an abbreviation, but is also used in Fig 2
>    and Fig 3. In any of these cases either spell out DetNet or define DN as an
>    abbreviation. I would just replace these kind of instances of “DN” with
>    “DetNet”.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Grammar:
>
> “For example, a DetNet MPLS domain the DN functions use the d-CWs,
> S-Labels and F-Labels to provide DetNet services.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “For example, in a DetNet MPLS domain the DetNet functions use the d-CWs,
> S-Labels and F-Labels to provide DetNet services.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Terminology: “edge system”
>
>    - Don’t we say “edge node”? I don’t see “edge system” anywhere else in
>    this draft. If it is used elsewhere so we are going to use it, I would
>    think it should be hyphenated “edge-system” like “end-system”. Or maybe
>    “edge system” in this context should be “end-system”.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. “edge node” is better here.*
>
> Abbreviation: “TDM technologies”
>
>    - TDM not defined.
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Something is wrong grammatically, run-on sentence at best, but I can’t
> figure out how to fix it, please help:
>
> “Flow aggregation includes aggregation accomplished through the use of
> hierarchical LSPs in MPLS and tunnels, in the case of IP, MPLS and TSN, all
> of which aggregate multiple DetNet flows into a single new DetNet flow.”
>
>    - Maybe something like:
>
> “Flow aggregation includes aggregation accomplished through the use of
> hierarchical LSPs in MPLS, and through IP or TSN tunnels. IP, MPLS and TSN
> are each capable of aggregating multiple DetNet flows into a single new
> DetNet flow.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. I will rewrite this sentences. TSN is also not correctly
> referred here.*
>
> Grammar:
>
> “Depending on the specific technology the assigned resources are updated
> and distributed in the databases preventing over subscription.”
>
>    - Try:
>
>  “Depending on the specific technology, the assigned resources are updated
> and distributed in the databases, preventing over-subscription.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> Question about the following:
>
> “While the DetNet IP data plane must support bidirectional DetNet flows,
> there are no special bidirectional features with respect to the data plane
> other than the need for the two directions of a co-
>
>    routed bidirectional flow to take the same path.  That is to say that
> bidirectional DetNet flows are solely represented at the management and
> control plane levels, without specific support or knowledge within the
> DetNet data plane.”
>
>    - There was discussion about use cases that wanted symmetrical delays
>    in both directions; is that guaranteed by taking “the same path”?
>    Presumably it is not implied by “fate sharing”?
>
> *>Balazs> Hmmm. Same path not necessarily results in symmetrical delay.
> Some technologies provides asymmetric link delays by nature. *
>
> Wording:
>
> “DetNet's use of PREOF may increase the complexity of using co-routing
> bidirectional flows, since if PREOF is used, then the replication points in
> one direction would have to match the elimination points in the other
> direction, and vice versa, and the optimal points for these functions in
> one direction may not match the optimal points in the other subsequent to
> the network and traffic constraints.”
>
>    - Try:
>
> “DetNet's use of PREOF may increase the complexity of using co-routing
> bidirectional flows, since if PREOF is used, then the replication points in
> one direction would have to match the elimination points in the other
> direction, and vice versa. In such cases the optimal points for these
> functions in one direction may not match the optimal points in the other,
> due to network and traffic constraints.”
>
> *>Balazs> OK. *
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_detnet&d=DwMFaQ&c=lI8Zb6TzM3d1tX4iEu7bpg&r=ZcHC6wX_gDwPDcfMaFNZiQ&m=LoWr5FLLdxJ9F8PZ-w96sSItGvuPA1_FxlNEEaxkQRo&s=xWou3mz-KWveznFSJNz5F-nXQ6dN8yJf7UBb804nHTw&e=>
>
>