[Detnet] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04: (with COMMENT)
Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 15 April 2020 06:22 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FA23A0F54; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 23:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework@ietf.org, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, Ethan Grossman <eagros@dolby.com>, eagros@dolby.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.127.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <158693175731.28211.1601796504323151669@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 23:22:37 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/k5ZMIP-ykdJ3ud4FMNo2v8nN3LU>
Subject: [Detnet] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Apr 2020 06:22:38 -0000
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. Just lots of editorial comments here: The RPC will need to do a lot of comma editing. I’m not going to call them all out here. — Section 1 — It describes the function and operation of the Packet Replication (PRF) Packet Elimination (PEF) and the Packet Ordering (POF) functions You need commas between the items in the list. I also find “the fuction of the functions” to be very odd, and suggest eliminating “functiin and” from the beginning of the sentence. Furthermore, it also describes the forwarding sub-layer. “Furthermore” and “also” together is redundant, and I suggest eliminating one of them. Different application flows (e.g., Ethernet, IP, etc.) can be mapped “e.g.” and “etc.” together is redundant, and I suggest “Different application flows, such as Ethernet or IP, can be mapped”. If you keep the parentheses, the comma needs to disappear. — Section 3 — The DetNet Architecture, [RFC8655], models the DetNet related data plane functions You don’t need the commas to set off the citation, as the brackets already do that. And “DetNet-related” needs a hyphen. Figure 1 reproduced from the [RFC8655],shows Make this, “Figure 1, reproduced from [RFC8655], shows” — Section 3.1.1 — currently defined for operation over packet switched (IP) networks or label switched (MPLS) networks. Hyphenate “packet-switched” and “label-switched”. — Section 3.1.2 — used and no sequence number is available, and in DetNet MPLS, DetNet specific information Hyphenate “DetNet-specific”. — Section 3.2 — An example of such metadata is the inclusion of a sequence number required by the PREOF function. “PREOF function” is redundant, as the “F” already means “function”. Also later in the document. — Section 3.4 — may be deployed, for example GRE, IPSec etc. “for example” and “etc.” together is redundant. — Section 3.6.1.1 — Reservation of resources can allocate resources to specific DetNet flows. This sounds a bit odd. Maybe, “Resources might be reserved in order to make them available for allocation to specific DetNet flows.” ? Misbehaving DetNet flows must be able to be detected and ensure that they do not compromise QoS of other flows. This sounds like it’s something that misbehaving DetNet flows have to do. It would be better this way: NEW It must be possible to detect misbehaving DetNet flows and to ensure that they do not compromise QoS of other flows. END — Section 3.6.1.2 — Explicit route computation can encompass a wide set of constraints and optimize the path for a certain characteristic e.g. highest bandwidth or lowest jitter. This would sound better with “and can optimize”. And “e.g.” needs commas bith before and after it, always. — Section 3.6.1.4 — DetNet could utilized Network coding Make it “utilize” (or, better, “use”). — Section 3.6.2.1 — traffic over each segment of the end to end path. Hyphenate “end-to-end” here. In this case there is no PRF function “PRF function” is redundant. — Section 3.6.2.2 — DetNet uses flow specific requirements (e.g., maximum number of out-of-order packets, maximum latency of the flow, etc.) for configuration of POF related buffers. Hyphenate “flow-specific” and “POF-related”, and eliminate either “e.g.” or “etc.” — Section 3.6.2.3 — Many of the same concepts apply however rings are There needs to be a comma before “however”. — Section 3.6.3 — How this is accomplished is data plane or control plane dependent. NEW How this is accomplished is data-plane or control-plane dependent. END When aggregating DetNet flows the flows should be compatible i.e. the same or very similar QoS and CoS characteristics. NEW When aggregating DetNet flows, the flows should be compatible, i.e., have the same or very similar QoS and CoS characteristics. END — Section 3.6.5 — MPLS nodes may interconnected by different sub-network “may be interconnected” Each of these sub-network technologies need to provide appropriate service The subject is “each”, which is singular, so “needs to provide”. — Section 4.2 — While management plane and control planes are traditionally considered separately, from the Data Plane perspective Don’t capitalize “data plane” here. — Section 4.2.1 — There are many techniques to achieve aggregation, for example in case of IP, it can be grouping of IP flows that share 6-tuple attributes or flow identifiers at the DetNet sub-layer. Very awkward sentence. Split and rephrase: NEW There are many techniques to achieve aggregation. For example, in the case of IP, IP flows that share 6-tuple attributes or flow identifiers at the DetNet sub-layer can be grouped. END — Section 5 — The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service “consideration”, singular. through the use of existing mechanism such as policing and shaping Make it “an existing mechanism” or “existing mechanisms”.
- [Detnet] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf… Barry Leiba via Datatracker
- Re: [Detnet] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-… Balázs Varga A