Re: [Detnet] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08
Mohammadpour Ehsan <ehsan.mohammadpour@epfl.ch> Wed, 16 February 2022 09:47 UTC
Return-Path: <ehsan.mohammadpour@epfl.ch>
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 DD27A3A0D25 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:47:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=epfl.ch
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 qoms6rucgPeT for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.epfl.ch (smtp0.epfl.ch [IPv6:2001:620:618:1e0:1:80b2:e058:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 740233A0D1E for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:47:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=epfl.ch; s=epfl; t=1645004864; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=uH+HnNOOzhE3XTz0kGM79ljuNM0H6p03OWcqrzumfcE=; b=Lnl5p0j6rkmU1Jake/ulFviAv5Dry9JdfHr+n3voakFczh19XgSR2IwnGkVDYOMsa EF8FiGfPlIDQzeU+HvMOf5J4G3EK2c48bySsL5S8RfRKTv9zhQwawj7mZAOdIindv TMtjcBGHuJbeJxYAlQlEOi6U0mf/gk6oL9cVcU3+s=
Received: (qmail 12162 invoked by uid 107); 16 Feb 2022 09:47:44 -0000
Received: from ax-snat-224-5.epfl.ch (HELO ewa01.intranet.epfl.ch) (192.168.224.5) (TLS, ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (X25519 curve) cipher) by mail.epfl.ch (AngelmatoPhylax SMTP proxy) with ESMTPS; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:47:44 +0100
X-EPFL-Auth: g6JLfMqAiq1G5wLLB5OqB48XeVlJdgPus7xyS9/0+upcdTkE6II=
Received: from ewa02.intranet.epfl.ch (128.178.224.159) by ewa01.intranet.epfl.ch (128.178.224.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2375.18; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:47:44 +0100
Received: from ewa02.intranet.epfl.ch ([fe80::ddaf:e0cc:a2d6:4aaf]) by ewa02.intranet.epfl.ch ([fe80::ddaf:e0cc:a2d6:4aaf%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.018; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:47:44 +0100
From: Mohammadpour Ehsan <ehsan.mohammadpour@epfl.ch>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
CC: "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08
Thread-Index: AQHYG5nRT41Vw40A8kKsD7/v4ylnBKyV7IWA
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:47:43 +0000
Message-ID: <33263DFB-2294-4FDA-87F1-30FF46F4889F@epfl.ch>
References: <164418003542.22630.8014632907280172816@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <164418003542.22630.8014632907280172816@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, fr-CH
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.178.151.68]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_33263DFB22944FDA87F130FF46F4889Fepflch_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/jpXs_6bUVDcS_qbMqwOwzAjLxqE>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08
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: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:47:53 -0000
Dear Robert Sparks, Thank you for your comments. We modified the draft to address your comments; specifically, It's not clear to me who this document is intended to inform. While reasonably written, it feels more like part of a larger discussion without pointers to that discussion, and I'm not seeing the utility of publishing it in the RFC series as it is currently framed. I don't _object_ to it's publication, but please consider if the purpose and audience could be made more clear. We modified the abstract to better explain the purpose and audience of the Bounded Latency draft. I find the division of Normative/Informative references suspect. In particular, please reconsider whether the IEEE references, particularly IEEE802.1Q-2018 should be normative. We moved the citation IEEE802.1Q-2018 to the Normative references in the new version of the draft. The document uses AVB as an acronym for (I think) A vs B, but that three-letter-acronym is already well used in this space (even in other detnet documents) to mean Audio Video Bridge. Is this collision necessary? We understand the confusion and modified the text at the beginning of Section 6.4. At section 7, "application of this document" is unclear. Consider expanding what you mean to say. I think you mean something like "an example use of the models in this document to inform the admission of a detnet flow”? We corrected it in the new version of the draft. Finally, you can find the new version of the draft in: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09.html as well as the difference between the new version and the previous version in: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09 Best, Ehsan -- Ehsan Mohammadpour PhD candidate at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) IC IINFCOM, LCA2, INF 011, Station 14, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour On 6 Feb 2022, at 21:40, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review result: Ready with Issues This is an artart Last Call review of draft-ietf-detndet-bounded-latency-08 This document is Mostly Ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but there are some issues to consider before publication. It's not clear to me who this document is intended to inform. While reasonably written, it feels more like part of a larger discussion without pointers to that discussion, and I'm not seeing the utility of publishing it in the RFC series as it is currently framed. I don't _object_ to it's publication, but please consider if the purpose and audience could be made more clear. I find the division of Normative/Informative references suspect. In particular, please reconsider whether the IEEE references, particularly IEEE802.1Q-2018 should be normative. The document uses AVB as an acronym for (I think) A vs B, but that three-letter-acronym is already well used in this space (even in other detnet documents) to mean Audio Video Bridge. Is this collision necessary? At section 7, "application of this document" is unclear. Consider expanding what you mean to say. I think you mean something like "an example use of the models in this document to inform the admission of a detnet flow"? I support Ralf Weber's comments.
- [Detnet] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-de… Robert Sparks via Datatracker
- Re: [Detnet] Artart last call review of draft-iet… Mohammadpour Ehsan
- Re: [Detnet] Artart last call review of draft-iet… Francesca Palombini