Re: [Detnet] Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft Comments - Cellular Radio and Industrial M2M

[János Farkas <[e-mail]>]

Well, I'd not enter MTBF discussion at this stage.

It is just example in the brackets. What about skipping numbers to get:

"Low packet loss (e.g., limited number of consecutive packets)"

?

The special aspect brought in really is the aspect of consecutive packets.

Regards,
Janos

On 12/19/2018 5:50 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
> Hello János
>
> I agree to change the sentence. Zero is not reasonable in the real 
> world, even in wired space : ) What about
>
>
> "Low packet loss (e.g.,  one in a million, one in a billion, min time 
> between losses, min packets between losses, strictly bounded number of 
> consecutive losses)"
>
> Maybe that’s too many examples but when you look up the (old) art of 
> “reliability “ you end up with terms such as MTBF…
>
> All the best
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:*detnet <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *János Farkas
> *Sent:* mercredi 19 décembre 2018 17:13
> *To:* Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>; Maik 
> Seewald (maseewal) <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft 
> Comments - Cellular Radio and Industrial M2M
>
> I just tried to resolve the concern around burstless.
>
> Actually, the numbers may not be right.
>
> Checking IEC/IEEE 60802 contributions
> https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/iec-ieee-60802-tsn-profile-for-industrial-automation/
>
> Use Cases: 
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2018/60802-industrial-use-cases-0918-v13.pdf
> and traffic type characterization: 
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2018/60802-ademaj-traffic-type-characterization-1118-v01.pdf
> indicate that the most stringent requirement is zero loss.
> The next one is how many consecutive packets may be lost
> There are more relaxed cases.
>
> This section is: 7.4.  Industrial M2M Asks
>
> Maybe we should focus on the stringent cases.
>
> What about updating the bullet to:
>
> "Low packet loss (e.g., zero, limited number of consecutive packets)"
>
> ?
>
> Regards,
> Janos
>
> On 12/18/2018 8:31 PM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote:
>
>     Thanks Janos,
>
>     Doesn’t 0.1-1% sound like an awful lot of packet loss?
>
>     Do I understand correctly that you mean:
>
>     "Low packet loss (0.1-1 % of packets can be lost, but only a
>     bounded number of consecutive packets can be lost)"
>
>     I guess I still don’t exactly understand the intent, can you
>     please clarify?
>     Thanks, and sorry for being dense here.
>
>     Ethan.
>
>     *From:*János Farkas <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:21 AM
>     *To:* Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Maik Seewald
>     (maseewal) <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Suresh Krishnan
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft Comments -
>     Cellular Radio and Industrial M2M
>
>     Hi Ethan,
>
>     Maybe it is not a god phrase, but the intention with the phrase
>     that the loss should be burstless was that consecutive packets
>     should not be lost.
>     Perhaps the maximum consecutive loss tolerance parameter describes
>     it better in
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-02
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Ddetnet-2Dflow-2Dinformation-2Dmodel-2D02&d=DwMD-g&c=lI8Zb6TzM3d1tX4iEu7bpg&r=ZcHC6wX_gDwPDcfMaFNZiQ&m=0W0EQyafQ7HdKxGYDUDOn91m44yUJHQre2QdC0Pq5rI&s=xtlwetwJuYWGjTBmpNfLC8CvvhDk4x1YkRjNDTE0rws&e=>.
>     It is the "maximum    number of consecutive packets whose loss can
>     be tolerated"
>
>     Maybe updating the bullet in the use cases draft to:
>
>     "Low packet loss (0.1-1 %, limited number of consecutive packets)"
>
>     ?
>
>     Regards,
>     Janos
>
>     On 12/16/2018 6:03 AM, Grossman, Ethan A. wrote:
>
>         *_Balazs, Janos: _*
>
>         * Section 7.4
>
>         What does burstless mean (especially in the context of low
>         packet loss)?
>