Re: [Detnet] AD review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-07

Mohammadpour Ehsan <> Mon, 24 January 2022 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4201E3A0E1D for <>; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 03:20:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pYIKWPZIEF15 for <>; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 03:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FBD83A0E1A for <>; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 03:20:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=epfl; t=1643023220; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=IOhuWl80PLBlfMVr2G6qAzxaJ1giWA3e2x93V7G9PYc=; b=SA58Z6cSZTqN40XRZQvE9mh4JWUBmDPTTjTU2yTF9gxQGd7gNNfC2AKv+VPNhR6FC BotPtleHuzoyloY1dWTq4K6SsCuzDoDeqi7U4TzpLbqNvITUhQMHovSZLUbN6CsPH Y8RxbRC2AKymO0i2qT5CcGoBH2zQ+dqq7i+sAlMP0=
Received: (qmail 20169 invoked by uid 107); 24 Jan 2022 11:20:20 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( (TLS, AES256-GCM-SHA384 cipher) by (AngelmatoPhylax SMTP proxy) with ESMTPS; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:20:20 +0100
X-EPFL-Auth: lffkfi3VnTU32x5BG5MSmwvRxcKKgrrva7AmRbrnPLmDdK0X2sQ=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:20:19 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::ddaf:e0cc:a2d6:4aaf]) by ([fe80::ddaf:e0cc:a2d6:4aaf%10]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.020; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:20:19 +0100
From: Mohammadpour Ehsan <>
To: John Scudder <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-07
Thread-Index: AQHYAPH8KZ6RUuKKSkiau5GWAIabuaxWhXUAgBuQnwA=
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:20:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, fr-CH
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_B343A17B17804FBEABA3DD835F61818Eepflch_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] AD review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:20:35 -0000

Dear John,

Thanks again for your review of the Bounded Latency draft. We have gone through your comments and modified the draft accordingly. The new version is now online: In the attachment, you can find the diff file of the last version and the new version as well as the response file to your comments (embedded as pdf comments).


Ehsan Mohammadpour
PhD candidate at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)
IC IINFCOM, LCA2, INF 011, Station 14, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

On 6 Jan 2022, at 23:23, John Scudder <<>> wrote:

Hi All,

I missed this one in my earlier comments:

Although the Acknowledgments section isn’t required, it’s customary, and I was a little surprised not to see one. It’s completely up to you whether to include one or not, but I thought I would check in to make sure this was a deliberate choice on your part. (I noticed this when I was checking up to see how the RTGDIR review by Tony P had been addressed.)



On Jan 3, 2022, at 5:33 PM, John Scudder <<>> wrote:

Dear Authors,

Here’s my review of your document. I don't think it will be too difficult to address my comments.

I’ve supplied my comments in the form of an edited copy of the draft. You can use your favorite diff tool to review them; I’ve attached a PDF of the rfcdiff output for your convenience if you’d like to use it. I’ve also pasted a traditional diff below in case you want to use it for in-line reply. I’d appreciate feedback regarding whether you found this a useful way to receive my comments as compared to a more traditional numbered list of comments with selective quotation from the draft.