Re: [Detnet] Congestion Protection name change

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think Andy’s right.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: detnet <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 3:36 PM
To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; detnet WG <[e-mail]>; János Farkas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Congestion Protection name change

Lou,

I think of "Resource management" as a superset of "Resource allocation", and so prefer "Resource management". That said, I can live with "Resource allocation" if that comes out as the consensus.

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
All,

     I met with the authors of detnet-architecture to see if we could
come up with a a single proposal.  The discussion led to three
candidates (see below for ordered list).  In the interest of closing on
this topic, I'd like to ask if there are *objections* to changing the
term "Congestion protection" to "Resource allocation".  Looking at the
related, first use, text in Section 3.2.1 this change would read
something like:

    Three techniques are used by DetNet to provide these qualities of
    service:
    o  Resource allocation (Section 3.2.1).
    o  Service protection (Section 3.2.2).
    o  Explicit routes (Section 3.2.3).

    Resource allocation operates by assigning resources, e.g.., buffer
    space or link bandwidth, to a DetNet flow (or flow aggregate) along
    its path.  Resource allocation greatly reduces, or even eliminates
    entirely, packet loss due to output packet contention within the
    network, but it can only be supplied to a DetNet flow that is limited
    at the source to a maximum packet size and transmission rate. Note
    that congestion control provided via congestion detection and
    notification [RFC3168] is explicitly excluded from consideration in
    DetNet, as it serves a different set of applications.

    Resource allocation addresses two of the DetNet QoS requirements:
    latency and packet loss.  Given that DetNet nodes have a finite
    amount of buffer space, Resource allocation necessarily results in
    a maximum end-to-end latency.  It also addresses contention related
    packet loss.

    Other important contribution to packet loss are random media errors
    and equipment failures...

Please respond, if you think this change (to 'resource allocation') is:
     (a) acceptable/something you can live with
     (b) unacceptable/something you think should not be part of the
DetNet architecture

(Note: please wait for the author to revise the actual text above based
on the outcome of this thread before providing edits.)

Thank you,
Lou
(as co-chair and shepherd)

The top three alternatives at the end of the meeting, in order were:
     1. Resource allocation
     2. Resource management
     3. Contention management

On 12/10/2018 9:29 AM, János Farkas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I understand, there is confusion around two DetNet terms.
> We are removing "transport".
>
> The other one is "congestion" and "congestion protection".
>
> Brief description of congestion protection in Section 3.1:
>
>      Congestion protection operates by allocating resources along the path
>      of a DetNet flow, e.g., buffer space or link bandwidth. Congestion
>      protection greatly reduces, or even eliminates entirely, packet loss
>      due to output packet congestion within the network, but it can only
>      be supplied to a DetNet flow that is limited at the source to a
>      maximum packet size and transmission rate.  Note that congestion
>      protection provided via congestion detection and notification is
>      explicitly excluded from consideration in DetNet, as it serves a
>      different set of applications.
>
>      Congestion protection addresses two of the DetNet QoS requirements:
>      latency and packet loss.  Given that DetNet nodes have a finite
>      amount of buffer space, congestion protection necessarily results in
>      a maximum end-to-end latency.  It also addresses the largest
>      contribution to packet loss, which is buffer congestion.
>
> Detailed description is in Section 3.2.1.
>
> We wanted to have a brief collective term for the mechanisms used to
> avoid queuing related packet loss (including buffer overflow etc.).
>
> Based on the discussions, we should have a term that does not include
> "congestion".
> ("Service Protection" is another DetNet term, hence we may consider a
> term without "protection" to minimize confusion.)
>
> I suggest to replace "congestion protection" with "queuing loss avoidance".
>
> After agreeing in the terminology cahnge (if any), the text has to be
> updated accordingly.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
> Janos
>
>
> On 11/20/2018 1:11 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I think we're getting somewhere and identifying where we have
>> disconnects and what may (and what may not) need to change in the
>> document.  My takeaways are:
>>
>> - The document needs a good 'scrub' of the congestion related
>> references to ensure that the document only makes statements on what
>> is actually done within a DetNet and the relationship with transport
>> protocols that use detnet (which are in fact outside the scope of the
>> DetNet WG).  I'll work with the authors and WG on this -- I see this
>> change as important, but editorial in nature.
>>
>> - We have a perception issue with at least one member of the TSV area
>> on the meaning and more importantly, implication, of the term "DetNet
>> *Transport* sub-layer".  While I don't disagree that a good portion of
>> the IETF thinks transport protocol (UDP/TCP) when they hear
>> "transport" there are plenty others, particularly in the routing area,
>> who understand that "transport" can refer to Transport Networks.  And
>> Transport Network is a well understood general industry term. The IETF
>> even has a bunch of RFCs that relate to Transport networks.  This
>> said, I think it reasonable to go back to the DetNet WG and discuss
>> changing the name of the "DetNet Transport sub-layer"  to avoid the
>> word "transport".  -- BTW we made a parallel change in the TEAS WG
>> when producing RFC8453.
>>
>> See below for detail response in-line.
>>
>> On 11/19/2018 5:15 PM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>>> Lou,
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> I wanted to take a step back from the multiple discussions that were
>>>> spawned by your review -- from a doc shepherd perspective, and see
>>>> where
>>>> we are.   I know that the authors have sent a -09 version that
>>>> addresses
>>>> some, but not all issues.
>>>>
>>>>    From the exchanges I've seen, I think the key remaining issues are
>>>> related to:
>>>>
>>>> (a) possibly introduction of congestion in the general internet if
>>>> packets were somehow to escape a detnet domain.  The source of this
>>>> congestion would be inelastic traffic using DetNet or due to congestion
>>>> loss that is masked by PREOF.
>>> These are two major issues that need to be addressed. Note that it
>>> may not be sufficient just to add a section on operational and
>>> deployment considerations. Also the existing text in the document
>>> will need to get aligned to normative guidance on how to avoid a
>>> congestion collapse.
>>>
>>> In -09, one example would be Section 3.1. "Primary goals defining the
>>> DetNet QoS"
>>>
>>>      Congestion protection operates by allocating resources along the
>>> path
>>>      of a DetNet flow, e.g., buffer space or link bandwidth. Congestion
>>>      protection greatly reduces, or even eliminates entirely, packet loss
>>>      due to output packet congestion within the network, but it can only
>>>      be supplied to a DetNet flow that is limited at the source to a
>>>      maximum packet size and transmission rate.  Note that congestion
>>>      protection provided via congestion detection and notification is
>>>      explicitly excluded from consideration in DetNet, as it serves a
>>>      different set of applications.
>>> At least the last sentence would contradict a better discussion of
>>> congestion in the document. For instance, it could just be removed.
>>> In any case, the current wording in the last sentence is not correct,
>>> as the IETF term for what is described in the last sentence is
>>> "congestion control".
>>>
>>> Another example would be  Section 3.2.1.1. "Eliminate congestion loss"
>>>        The primary means by which DetNet achieves its QoS assurances
>>> is to
>>>      reduce, or even completely eliminate, congestion within a DetNet
>>> node
>>>      as a cause of packet loss.  This can be achieved only by the
>>>      provision of sufficient buffer storage at each node through the
>>>      network to ensure that no packets are dropped due to a lack of
>>> buffer
>>>      storage.  Note that a DetNet flow cannot be throttled, i.e., its
>>>      transmission rate cannot be reduced via explicit congestion
>>>      notification.
>>>
>>> This section IMHO has to include a discussion of what happens in the
>>> (not expected) case that packets get dropped or that ECN marks are
>>> received. It is understood that this would not happen in normal
>>> operation of a DetNet network, but I believe just considering the
>>> error-free operation of a DetNet network is not sufficient for this
>>> document. At least for the risk of traffic that may escape from a
>>> DetNet network is inherently not sufficient to assume that the DetNet
>>> network is always error-free.
>> I think these are examples of text that needs to be cleanup up and to
>> delineate what is done with a DetNet.
>>
>>
>>> As a result, addressing my concerns will most likely require editing
>>> several parts of the document.
>>>
>>> In addition, I'd like to emphasize that my review comment "It is
>>> surprising that there is hardly any discussion on network robustness
>>> and safety"
>> I have no idea what you mean by safety here.  Can you elaborate.
>>
>>
>>> covers more than just inelastic traffic that escapes from a DetNet
>>> network and masking of packet loss. Given that DetNet traffic may be
>>> extremely critical traffic, I really wonder why the document doesn't
>>> emphasize more the required robustness against failures *inside* the
>>> DetNet network as well as counter-measures. But this is something the
>>> WG needs to decide. As TSV-ART reviewer, I will be fine if the
>>> document clearly describes how the impact of failures will be
>>> isolated inside the DetNet network and will not put the general
>>> Internet at risk.
>> I agree - I think, the document should be clear on it's scope and
>> relationship to general internet usage.
>>
>>
>>>> (b) The use of the term 'transport' in DetNet to refer to what is
>>>> basically a Traffic Engineered sub-network layer, such as is provided
>>>> with MPLS-TE or Optical Transport Networks.
>>> In the Internet architecture, the term 'transport' refers to Internet
>>> transport protocols. I doubt that the document can avoid discussing
>>> the implications of and interactions with Internet transport
>>> protocols such as UDP or TCP. As a result, I disagree that the
>>> document can use the term 'transport' to refer to traffic engineered
>>> sub-network layers.
>> I think this is covered by my comment above.
>>
>>
>>>   From a TSV-ART point of view, the document can either only use the
>>> term "transport" for Internet transport protocols and use another
>>> term for sub-network layers (as handled in the *routing* area of the
>>> IETF), or the document has to clearly distinguish between the
>>> Internet transport layer and other uses of the term "transport" and
>>> explain the overlap. I believe the former would be less confusing,
>>> but I will leave it up to the TSV ADs to discuss terminology overlap
>>> in the IESG. As TSV-ART reviewer I insist that the document uses the
>>> terms "transport layer" and "transport protocol" only when referring
>>> to the Internet transport layer.
>> I'm personally okay with a name change and even willing to push this
>> discussion within the WG, but as said above, "Transport Network" is a
>> generally understood industry term that is also used in RFCs -- so
>> we'll have to see what where WG consensus ends up.
>>
>>>> Do you have any other issues that that are critical to be addressed
>>>> before this work moves forward?  If so which?
>>> Regarding Section 4.4 I have already deferred the discussion to the
>>> IESG. The TSV-ART review comment is that the IESG needs to carefully
>>> look at the concepts, terminology, and references in section 4..4.
>>>
>>> Regarding my other comments, I acknowledge that -09 is a step
>>> forward. But given the cross-dependencies e.g. regarding terminology
>>> and definitions, I will need to read the text completely once there
>>> is a proposal how to address my review. As noted in my review, I
>>> believe the document must use terminology clearly and consistently.
>>> As example, a statement in -09 such as "Network nodes supporting
>>> DetNet flows have to implement some of the DetNet capabilities (not
>>> necessarily all) in order to treat DetNet flows such that their QoS
>>> requirements are met" is IMHO too vague. But in such cases it depends
>>> whether there is precise normative guidance elsewhere. And this
>>> requires looking at the text as a whole.
>> I think the next steps lie with me and the WG.  We'll let you know
>> once there is a new version.  Of course, you can also contribute to
>> the WG discussion on the topic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>> On 9/28/2018 6:24 PM, Michael Scharf wrote:
>>>>> Reviewer: Michael Scharf
>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>>
>>>>> The document "Deterministic Networking Architecture"
>>>>> (draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08) defines an overall framework for
>>>>> Deterministic Networking.
>>>>>
>>>>> As TSV-ART reviewer, I believe that this document has issues as
>>>> detailed below.
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> Major issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> * It seems that DetNet cannot easily be deployed in the Internet
>>>> without
>>>>> additional means. Thus, for a baseline document, one could expect
>>>> some
>>>>> explanation on the requirements of deploying DetNet in a network.
>>>> DetNet
>>>>> basically requires support in (almost) all network devices
>>>> transporting DetNet
>>>>> traffic. That assumption should be explicitly spelt out early in the
>>>> document,
>>>>> e.g., in the introduction. There also needs to be an explicit
>>>> discussion of the
>>>>> implications if not the whole network is aware of or supports DetNet.
>>>> There is
>>>>> some text in Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.3.3, but I believe
>>>> additional explicit
>>>>> discussion is needed at a prominant place. For instance, can use of
>>>> DetNet do
>>>>> harm to parts of a network not supporting DetNet? As a side note,
>>>> when TCPM
>>>>> published RFC 8257, the following disclaimer was added: "DCTCP, as
>>>> described in
>>>>> this specification, is applicable to deployments in controlled
>>>> environments
>>>>> like data centers, but it must not be deployed over the public
>>>> Internet without
>>>>> additional measures." I wonder if a similar disclaimer is needed for
>>>> DetNet. If
>>>>> there is an implicit assumption that DetNet will  be used in
>>>> homogenous
>>>>> environments with mostly DetNet-aware devices within the same
>>>> organization,
>>>>> such an assumption should be made explicit.
>>>>>
>>>>> * It is surprising that there is hardly any discussion on network
>>>> robustness
>>>>> and safety; this probably also relates to security. For instance,
>>>>> misconfiguration or errors of functions performing packet replication
>>>> could
>>>>> severely and permantly congest a network and cause harm. How does the
>>>> DetNet
>>>>> architecture ensure that a network stays fully operational e.g. if
>>>> the topology
>>>>> changes or there are equipment failures? Probably this can be solved
>>>> by
>>>>> implementations (e.g., dynamic control plane), but why are
>>>> corresponding
>>>>> requirements not spelt out? Section 3.3.2 speculates that filters and
>>>> policers
>>>>> can help, and that may be true, but that probably still assumes
>>>> consistently
>>>>> and correctly configured (and well-behaving) devices. And Section
>>>> 3.3.2 is
>>>>> vague and mentions a "infinite variety of possible failures" without
>>>> stating
>>>>> any requirements or recommendations. There may be further solutions,
>>>> such as
>>>>> circuit breakers and the like. Why are such topics not discussed?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Somewhat related, the document only looks at impact of failures to
>>>> the QoS of
>>>>> DetNet traffic. What is missing is a discussion how to protect non-
>>>> DetNet parts
>>>>> of a network from any harm caused by DetNet mechanisms.. Solutions to
>>>> this
>>>>> probably exist. But why is the impact on non-DetNet traffic (e.g., in
>>>> case of
>>>>> topology changes or failures of DetNet functions) not discussed at
>>>> all in the
>>>>> document?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Regarding security, an architecture like DetNet probably requires
>>>> that only
>>>>> authenticated and authorized end systems have access to the data
>>>> plane. The
>>>>> security considerations only briefly mention the control aspect ("the
>>>>> authentication and authorization of the controlling systems").
>>>>>
>>>>> * For an architecture document, the lack of clarity and consistency
>>>> regarding
>>>>> terminology is concerning. This specifically applies to the case of
>>>> incomplete
>>>>> networks (as per Section 4.2.2 and 4.3.3) that include "DetNet-
>>>> unaware nodes".
>>>>> The document introduces terms such as "DetNet intermediate nodes" but
>>>> then
>>>>> repeatedly uses generic terms such as "node" or "hop" that may
>>>> include
>>>>> DetNet-unaware nodes. For instance, for incomplete networks, a
>>>> sentence such as
>>>>> "The primary means by which DetNet achieves its QoS assurances is to
>>>> reduce, or
>>>>> even completely eliminate, congestion within a node as a cause of
>>>> packet loss"
>>>>> seems to only apply to "DetNet transit nodes" but not "DetNet-unaware
>>>> nodes".
>>>>> Similar ambiguity exist for other use of the terms "hop" and "node",
>>>> which may
>>>>> or may not include DetNet-unaware nodes. It is unclear why the
>>>> document does
>>>>> not consistently use the terminology introduced in Section 2.1 in all
>>>> sections
>>>>> and clearly distinguishes cases with and without DetNet support.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Section 4.4 refers to RFC 7426, which is an informational RFC on
>>>> IRTF stream,
>>>>> and the document uses the concepts introduced there (e..g., "planes").
>>>> This is
>>>>> very confusing. First, an IETF Proposed Standard should probably
>>>> refer to
>>>>> documents having IETF consensus. An example would be RFC 7491, albeit
>>>> there is
>>>>> other related work as well, e.g., in the TEAS WG. Second, Section 4.4
>>>> is by and
>>>>> large decoupled from the rest of the document and not specific to
>>>> DetNet.
>>>>> Neither do other sections of the document refer to the concepts
>>>> introduced in
>>>>> Section 4.4, nor does Section 4.4 use the DetNet terminology or
>>>> discuss
>>>>> applicability to DetNet. Section 4.4 even mentions explicitly at the
>>>> end that
>>>>> it discusses aspects that are orthogonal to the DetNet architecture.
>>>> It is not
>>>>> at all clear why Section 4.4 is in this document. Section 4.4 could
>>>> be removed
>>>>> from the document without impacting the rest of the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Terminology "DetNet transport layer"
>>>>>
>>>>>      The term "transport layer" has a well-defined meaning in the IETF,
>>>> e.g.
>>>>>      originating from RFC 1122. While "transport" and e.g. "transport
>>>> network" is
>>>>>      used in the IETF for different technologies in different areas, I
>>>> think the
>>>>>      term "transport layer" is typically understood to refer to
>>>> transport
>>>>>      protocols such as TCP and UDP.. As such, I personally find the term
>>>> "DetNet
>>>>>      transport layer" misleading and confusing. The confusion is easy
>>>> to see e.g.
>>>>>      in Figure 4, where UDP (which is a transport protocol as per RFC
>>>> 1122) sits
>>>>>      on top of "transport".
>>>>>
>>>>>      Based on the document it also may be solution/implementation
>>>> specific whether
>>>>>      the "DetNet transport layer" is actually a separate protocol layer
>>>> compared
>>>>>      to the "DetNet service layer". Thus it is not clear to me why the
>>>> word
>>>>>      "layer" has to be used, specifically in combination "transport
>>>> layer".
>>>>>      To me as, the word "transport layer" (and "transport protocol")
>>>> should be
>>>>>      used for protocols defined in TSV area, consistent with RFC 1122.
>>>> But this is
>>>>>      probably a question to be sorted out by the IESG.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 9
>>>>>
>>>>>       A DetNet node may have other resources requiring allocation
>>>> and/or
>>>>>       scheduling,
>>>>>
>>>>>      This is just one of several examples for inconsistent use of
>>>> terminology.
>>>>>      What is a "DetNet node"? That term is not introduced in Section
>>>> 2.1
>>>>> * Page 14
>>>>>
>>>>>       A DetNet network supports the dedication of a high proportion
>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>       75%) of the network bandwidth to DetNet flows.
>>>>>
>>>>>      The 75% value is not reasoned.. What prevents using 99% of the
>>>> bandwidth for
>>>>>      DetNet traffic?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 15: Figure 2
>>>>>
>>>>>      If the term "transport layer" cannot be avoided, the labels in
>>>> this figure
>>>>>      should at least be expanded to "DetNet transport layer".
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 18: Figure 4
>>>>>
>>>>>      As already mentioned earlier, Figure 4 is confusing. UDP is a
>>>> transport
>>>>>      protocol. If the term "transport" cannot be avoided, the labels in
>>>> this
>>>>>      figure should at least be expanded to "DetNet transport".
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 23
>>>>>
>>>>>       If the source transmits less data than this limit
>>>>>       allows, the unused resource such as link bandwidth can be made
>>>>>       available by the system to non-DetNet packets.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Could there be additional requirements on the use of unused
>>>> resources by
>>>>>      non-DetNet packets, e.g., regarding preemption? I am just
>>>> wondering... If
>>>>>      that was possible, a statement like "... can be made available by
>>>> the system
>>>>>      to non-DetNet packets as long as all guarantees are fulfilled"
>>>> would be on
>>>>>      the safe side, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 27:
>>>>>
>>>>>       DetNet achieves congestion protection and bounded delivery
>>>> latency by
>>>>>       reserving bandwidth and buffer resources at every hop along the
>>>> path
>>>>>       of the DetNet flow.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Why does this sentence use the word "hop"? As far as I understand,
>>>> in DetNet
>>>>>      bandwidth and buffer resources are reserved in each DetNet
>>>> intermediate node.
>>>>>      If there were hops over IP routers not being DetNet intermediate
>>>> nodes, no
>>>>>      resources would be reserved there. As per Section 4.3.3, it is
>>>> possible to
>>>>>      deploy DetNet this way. And obviously there can be resource
>>>> bottlenecks below
>>>>>      IP, on devices that are not routers... So does "hop" here refer to
>>>> IP router
>>>>>      hops or also to devices not processing IP (or IP/MPLS)?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 27:
>>>>>
>>>>>       Standard queuing and transmission selection algorithms allow a
>>>>>       central controller to compute the latency contribution of each
>>>>>       transit node to the end-to-end latency, ...
>>>>>
>>>>>      The text does not explain why a _central_ controller is needed for
>>>> this
>>>>>      computation. Why would a distributed control plane not be able to
>>>> realize
>>>>>      this computation. Isn't this implementation-specific?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 32
>>>>>
>>>>>      To somebody who is not deeply familiar with DetNet, it is
>>>> impossible to parse
>>>>>      the description of the examples in Section 4.7.3. For instance,
>>>> "VID +
>>>>>      multicast MAC address" is not introduced. I think this example
>>>> must be
>>>>>      expaned with additional context and explanation to be useful to
>>>> readers.
>>>>> * Page 34
>>>>>
>>>>>       There are three classes of information that a central controller
>>>> or
>>>>>       distributed control plane needs to know that can only be obtained
>>>>>       from the end systems and/or nodes in the network.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Wouldn't it be sufficient to state "Provisioning of DetNet
>>>> requires knowledge
>>>>>      about ...". Does it matter in this context whether the
>>>> provisioning is done
>>>>>      by a central controller or a distributed control plane? For
>>>> instance, could
>>>>>      the same paragraph also apply to a network that uses _multiple_
>>>> central
>>>>>      controllers, or hybrid combinations of central controllers and
>>>> distributed
>>>>>      control planes? In general, an architecture document should be
>>>> agnostic to
>>>>>      implementation aspects unless there is a specific need. In this
>>>> specific
>>>>>      case, I fail to see a need to discuss the realization of the
>>>> control plane of
>>>>>      a network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Editorial nits:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 9:
>>>>>
>>>>>       The low-level mechanisms described in Section 4.5 provide the
>>>>>       necessary regulation of transmissions by an end system or
>>>>>       intermediate node to provide congestion protection. The
>>>> allocation
>>>>>       of the bandwidth and buffers for a DetNet flow requires
>>>> provisioning
>>>>>       A DetNet node may have other resources requiring allocation
>>>> and/or
>>>>>       scheduling, that might otherwise be over-subscribed and trigger
>>>> the
>>>>>       rejection of a reservation.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Probably a full stop is missing after "provisioning".
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 11: "... along separate (disjoint non-SRLG) paths ..."
>>>>>
>>>>>      I find this confusing. I would understand e.g. "along separate
>>>>>      (SRLG-disjoint) paths".
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 34:
>>>>>
>>>>>       When using a peer-
>>>>>       to-peer control plane, some of this information may be required
>>>> by a
>>>>>       system's neighbors in the network.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Would "acquired" be a better term?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 34:
>>>>>
>>>>>       o  The identity of the system's neighbors, and the
>>>> characteristics of
>>>>>          the link(s) between the systems, including the length (in
>>>>>          nanoseconds) of the link(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>      "Latency" or "delay" would probably be a better terms if the value
>>>> is
>>>>>      measured in nanoseconds.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Page 35:
>>>>>
>>>>>       DetNet is provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, does
>>>> not
>>>>>       directly raise any new privacy considerations.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Broken sentence
>>>>>
>>>>> * Please expand acronyms on first use (e.g., OTN)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> detnet mailing list
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[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=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=x-a2-FkxV9FVzoBPYqhki-d6dTr8aMoYOZvLBMQiZKI&s=CgPCouhIIjjXPe07LlcZrBdgRhKb5hckS1j78aaZztE&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[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=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=x-a2-FkxV9FVzoBPYqhki-d6dTr8aMoYOZvLBMQiZKI&s=CgPCouhIIjjXPe07LlcZrBdgRhKb5hckS1j78aaZztE&e=>

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[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=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=x-a2-FkxV9FVzoBPYqhki-d6dTr8aMoYOZvLBMQiZKI&s=CgPCouhIIjjXPe07LlcZrBdgRhKb5hckS1j78aaZztE&e=>