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

IMHO, "Traffic Engineering" will be worse than "Transport":

- Makes more important people confused

  IMHO, the mayor group of people (rightfully) confused by the term "Transport"
  in the DetNet context are IETF apps and transport area people, and
  quite frankly, thats not the primary reader constituency of DetNet
  documents. Network operators / vendors / TSN members / TSN solutoin
  devenlopers, aka: the primary reader consitutency for DetNet documents will
  IMHO be less confused by "Transport" than by "Traffic Engineering".

- Creates even more inconsistent confusion

  IMHO, Differnt confused people will even more likely assume through 
  name recognition a lot more different functions into "Traffic
  Engineering". (TE means RSVP-TE, oh no, TE means network planning,
  TE can not mean QoS, TE is jut admission control, no TE needs to be
  per-hop, yada yada yada).

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)

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. <eagros@dolby.com
> > <mailto:eagros@dolby.com>> wrote:
> > 
> >     I like it.
> >     Ethan.
> > 
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com
> >     <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>
> >     Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:27 AM
> >     To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net <mailto:lberger@labn.net>>;
> >     Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de
> >     <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>>
> >     Cc: detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>;
> >     draft-ietf-detnet-architecture.all@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:draft-ietf-detnet-architecture.all@ietf.org>
> >     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 <lberger@labn.net <mailto:lberger@labn.net>>
> >     > Sent: mardi 20 novembre 2018 19:19
> >     > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com
> >     <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>; Scharf, Michael
> >     > <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de
> >     <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>>
> >     > Cc: detnet@ietf.org <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>;
> >     draft-ietf-detnet-architecture.all@ietf.org
> >     <mailto:draft-ietf-detnet-architecture.all@ietf.org>
> >     > 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
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet