Re: [Detnet] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Balázs,

Thanks for the clarification.
I think it might be good if you can provide simple texts in the draft to
provide these info for references.
--
Yoshi

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:10 AM Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Yoshi,
>
> Many thanks for the review.
> Regarding your comment on "conflict of the flow ID or wrap-around of the
> sequence number".
> Yes, these are important aspects in DetNet.
>
> Yes, flow ID must be unique in order to identify packets belonging to the
> DetNet flow.
> This must be ensured by the control and/or management plane. DetNet WG was
> re-chartered
> recently to focus on these planes as well. In data plane drafts we have
> dedicated a section
> to collect " Controller Plane (Management and Control) Considerations".
>
> Regarding sequence number, wrap-around events are flow characteristics and
> network
> dependent. The data plane technology specific documents ensures that the
> sequence number
> space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight ( see Section 4.1. and
> 4.2.1 in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls ).
>
> I hope that clarifies your comments.
>
> Many Thanks
> Bala'zs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshifumi Nishida via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:58 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Tsvart last call review of
> draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04
>
> Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
> team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were
> written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and
> also to the IETF discussion list for information.
>
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> [e-mail] if you reply to or forward this review.
>
> Summary: Ready with Nits.
>
> This document is well-written as an informational RFC. I don't see any
> technical issues related to transport, but it might be better to clarify
> the following minor point.
>
> The draft allows DetNet data plane to carry flow ID and sequence number as
> metadata. But, aren't there any potential risks for the conflict of the
> flow ID or wrap-around of the sequence number? (especially for explicit
> case) It might be better to state which module should care if it's out of
> scope for the draft or to clarify there is no risk against them.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi
>
>
>
>