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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,
my first choice would be "DetNet Transport Network sub-layer" but would
agree with "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer".
On a side note, for the sake of completeness, we may add SRv6 to the list
in Figure 4 and refer to SR over MPLS data plane as SR-MPLS.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:49 AM Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I also support DetNet Forwarding sub-layer. Unlike Lou, I've always
> regarded queuing as a fundamental part of an overall forwarding
> architecture.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:13 AM Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Focusing on the proposal:
>>
>> > In order to have another alternative on the table I propose renaming
>> > "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
>> This is a bit of a new usage for 'Forwarding' but not totally --
>> thinking about FIBs.  My main reservation is that forwarding is usually
>> considered separately from queuing, while this sub-layer embodies both.
>> I do accept that TE usually considers both forwarding/steering and
>> queuing, and that some assume that sophisticated queuing is required for
>> TE -- which is actually service dependent.
>>
>> Even with this caveat and my personal preference for the 'TE' option, I
>> (as contributor) can live with "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer".
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> On 12/7/2018 10:45 AM, János Farkas wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I have a similar concern with the change. It of course depends on the
>> > definition of Traffic Engineering, but the term "DetNet TE sub-layer"
>> > may imply to the reader that Traffic Engineering is a must even for
>> > DetNet transit nodes. As far as I recall, the intention is to make
>> > possible that DetNet transit nodes can be kept simple. Depending on the
>> > actual DetNet service provided, DetNet transit nodes can be actually
>> simple.
>> >
>> > The idea behind the introduction of the two DetNet sub-layers was to
>> > make it easier to tackle the problem. The lower layer provides simpler
>> > packet forwarding related functions, the higher DetNet Service sub-layer
>> > provides more complex DetNet service related functions.
>> >
>> > In order to have another alternative on the table I propose renaming
>> > "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Janos
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/20/2018 10:10 PM, 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. <[e-mail]
>> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>      I like it.
>> >>>      Ethan.
>> >>>
>> >>>      -----Original Message-----
>> >>>      From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
>> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >>>      Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:27 AM
>> >>>      To: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>> >>>      Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]
>> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >>>      Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> >>>      [e-mail]
>> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >>>      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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >>>      > Sent: mardi 20 novembre 2018 19:19
>> >>>      > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
>> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Scharf, Michael
>> >>>      > <[e-mail]
>> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >>>      > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> >>>      [e-mail]
>> >>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >>>      > 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
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>