IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling

xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Tue, 15 February 2022 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0DC3A08E3 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:53:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1zWEaIDq5Cl for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:53:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E336C3A08C7 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4JyZcX1FfNz8PxCq; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:53:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 21F8rE2c022193; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:53:14 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:53:13 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:53:13 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9620b69f9740c9758
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202202151653138888376@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: pthubert@cisco.com
Cc: detnet@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 21F8rE2c022193
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 620B69FC.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1644915196/4JyZcX1FfNz8PxCq/620B69FC.000/10.30.14.239/[10.30.14.239]/mse-fl2.zte.com.cn/<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 620B69FC.000/4JyZcX1FfNz8PxCq
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Xa5rQ3CZ1c2GBwjTINNx6kCm1zw>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] PREOF signaling
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:31 -0000

Hi Pascal,

Thanks for your work!
I suggest the consensus about the IPv6 HBH extensions need be corresponded with 6MAN WG.
In my opinion, your draft could be discussed from two seperate parts including DetNet Redundancy Information Option and DetNet Path Options.
For DetNet Redundancy Information Option, it solves the same issue with draft-varga-detnet-ip-preof. Use cases and detailed procedures could be provided especially for the extended parameters. 
For DetNet Path Options, it is inspired to propose the path-oriented forwarding for DetNet, but other than Path-ID carried in packets, we need more detailed mechanisms.
I am not sure if I understand it right or no, I suggest to divide the draft into two drafts discussing the Redundancy and Path separately.

Best Regards,
Quan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email